Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Leaving the EU: Economic and Social Effect

Wes Streeting: What recent assessment his Department has made of the (a) economic and (b) social effect on Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

Alex Cunningham: What recent assessment his Department has made of the (a) economic and (b) social effect on Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

Robin Walker: We have now left the EU with a good deal. Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs territory and will be able to participate in our free trade deals. The Prime Minister negotiated hard to ensure that measures are in place that reflect Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. There will be no hard border with Ireland. At the same time, the agreement completely safeguards Northern Ireland’s integral place within the United Kingdom, and the arrangements on rights and consent within the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Wes Streeting: The Prime Minister got the majority he asked for to deliver the Brexit that he wanted, but is it really possible for him to deliver on his promise that there would be no forms and no checks—no barriers of any kind—not just between Great Britain and Northern Ireland but between the north of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

Robin Walker: The protocol provides important protections in that respect. Of course we will be working through the Joint Committee, and through the legislation that has been promised with the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, to deliver on those promises.

Alex Cunningham: The Government’s assessment of the economic impact of the withdrawal agreement had little by way of forecasts in terms of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that this shows the lack of regard that the Government have shown to Northern Ireland throughout the Brexit process?

Robin Walker: The Government have put Northern Ireland absolutely at the centre of this process. That is reflected in the nature of the protocol that is agreed as part of the withdrawal agreement and legislated for through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020. But of course the end result will depend on the free trade agreement negotiated between the UK and the EU, and it is too early at this stage to speculate on the details of that. Northern Ireland does enjoy special protections in this process as a result of the protocol.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister was very careful not to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) as to whether there will be checks on goods travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The First Minister is clear that there will be. The EU negotiator, Michel Barnier, is clear that there will be. Many people in industry and commerce in Northern Ireland believe that there will be. Does the Minister agree that there will be checks, or does he say that there will not be checks, on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland?

Robin Walker: The Prime Minister has been clear. Beyond our obligations under international law, there will be no changes for movements of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When discussing the protocol with the EU, the UK will be ambitious on how flexible we can make this system. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister is of course right that the Prime Minister has been crystal clear. The very simple question for the Minister is this: is the Prime Minister right or wrong?

Robin Walker: The Prime Minister is always right.

Owen Paterson: One of the ways of consolidating the benefits of leaving the EU would be to make Northern Ireland the most attractive part of the UK to trade. When I was Secretary of State, we had an all-party campaign that had the support of all the business community. Thanks to the tremendous efforts of my successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the Executive now have the power to reduce corporation tax. Some Members of the Executive are a bit gloomy about this. What steps are the Government taking to encourage Members of the Executive to take this amazing power to match corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point—of course, he speaks with considerable experience in this area. It is right that we agreed, as part of previous agreements, that the Executive should have that power. If Ministers from the Executive wish to use it, we stand ready to engage with them, as long as they can show that the finances of the Northern Ireland Executive will be sustainable on the basis of any move in corporation tax.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the special status that Northern Ireland has, now that we have left the European Union, means that there is a bright new future for all the people in Northern Ireland, and that that future should be embraced, not greeted with the doom and gloom from Labour?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. What I see when I visit businesses in Northern Ireland is a determination to deliver for the economy to make sure that people in Northern Ireland enjoy the benefits both of being part of a global and outward-looking UK and of getting the best relationship with our European neighbours. That is an endeavour on which we must all now work together.

Northern Ireland Executive: Financial Package

Jim Shannon: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the financial package allocated to the Northern Ireland Executive.

Ben Bradley: How much funding the Government plan to allocate to the Northern Ireland Executive in relation to the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement.

Julian Smith: The UK Government are providing the restored Executive with a £2 billion financial package that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland and supports delivery of the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement. This financial commitment represents the biggest injection of new money in a Northern Ireland talks deal in well over a decade. The £2 billion of extra investment gives the Executive the means to transform the lives of people in Northern Ireland for a generation.

Jim Shannon: In January 2020, when making a statement about the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, the Secretary of State told the House that the financial package was a good start. I love a good start, but I also like good progress. Will he update the House on what progress has been made in building on the good start to ensure investment in better mental health services and dealing with the legacy of the past?

Julian Smith: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a very good start, and there have been multiple meetings here in Whitehall with joint Ministers. We have had a Joint Ministerial Committee in Cardiff, and yesterday both the First and Deputy First Ministers attended, for the first time ever, a recruitment drive by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We have seen a very positive start, and I hope that that continues.

Ben Bradley: rose—

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Ben Bradley: Thank you very much. I thank my right hon. Friend for his previous answer. Will he confirm for the House and for the communities of Northern Ireland that this is the most generous package of its kind that has ever been allocated to Northern Ireland through a process like this?

Julian Smith: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. Voters in Northern Ireland realise that this is a good package. There is a Budget coming up in March, and I am sure that if the Executive prioritise their programme of government there will be a positive future for the whole of Northern Ireland.

Kirsten Oswald: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the welcome financial assistance being made available to the new Northern Ireland Executive will be subject to the Barnett formula? Will he also say what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?

Julian Smith: I think that the hon. Lady knows that this package is a unique package for Northern Ireland, and is not subject to the Barnett consequentials. She also knows that there is a very, very good Secretary of State for Scotland, who enjoys working positively with her and her colleagues.

Karin Smyth: There is some discussion about exactly what £2 billion extra means among the parties in Northern Ireland, and it is important that the Government maintain trust with the people of Northern Ireland to honour financial and economic commitments. In the wake of the renewable heat incentive scandal it is important that the Government ensure transparency and value for taxpayers’ money. Can the Secretary of State tell us what investment is required to fund the Bengoa review, and what assessment has been made of savings from delivering an integrated education service?

Julian Smith: The answers are to be found with the Executive. It is up to the devolved Government to look at how best to spend the package. It is up to the parties and the Executive to work through how they deliver on their side of the agreement, which is to transform both the health service and education. It is not for me to come up with those answers, but I look forward to hearing theirs.

Security Situation

Robert Largan: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Damien Moore: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Ranil Jayawardena: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Julian Smith: The security situation in Northern Ireland remains severe.

Robert Largan: In light of the answer that the Secretary of State has given, can he advise the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure a smooth transition and continued security and peace in Northern Ireland when the withdrawal agreement transition period comes to an end on 31 December?

Julian Smith: There are very good discussions with the EU on security matters, and there are very strong bonds with the Irish Government. I remain confident that the security situation that I have just described can be well managed with our current relationships and within the remit of the transition agreement.

Damien Moore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the continued presence of dissident organisations in Northern Ireland, and will he say that there is no place in our society for those who peddle hate and division?

Julian Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to condemn the ongoing activities of dissident republicans. I pay tribute to the police and to our security services for all the work that they do to make sure that Northern Ireland remains safe.

Ranil Jayawardena: What about those who have been responsible for security in years gone by? When will the Government put an end to the vexatious claims against our brave armed forces?

Julian Smith: We have said—and the Prime Minister could not be clearer on this—that we will end vexatious claims, for both the police and the armed forces. We look forward to bringing forward legislation in that regard in due course.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome that the Secretary of State just said he is going to end vexatious complaints against police officers. In the light of that, will he commit to meet Mark Lindsay, the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and officers from the Retired Police Officers Association, so that they can put to him their grave concerns about the non-criminal charges that it has been suggested should be levelled at former serving brave police officers in Ulster?

Julian Smith: I will, of course, meet those the hon. Gentleman mentioned as soon as possible.

Claire Hanna: The Secretary of State will know that the Stormont House agreement is the process agreed by all parties, after consultation with victims, on how to address the legacy of the troubles on the basis of truth, justice and reconciliation. Does he agreed that that is the settled process, and is he confident that the Government will stick to it and to the principle that everybody is equal before the law?

Julian Smith: I am confident that we can deliver on the Government’s priority of ending vexatious claims for our armed forces and the police, but I also look forward to working with all parties in Northern Ireland to develop a consensus on how we move forward on the Stormont House agreement.

Conor McGinn: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the support from political parties and community organisations, such as the Gaelic Athletic Association, for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland recruitment campaign? Will he encourage young nationalists to join the police and pursue a noble career and profession? Will he also join me in commending the work of PSNI officers, the Garda Síochána and, indeed, police throughout the whole of these islands?

Julian Smith: It was such a positive event yesterday, when we saw the First Minister and Deputy First Minister attending that recruitment drive. I encourage all young women and men in Northern Ireland who are interested in the police service to join, whatever their background.

Northern Ireland Economy

Laurence Robertson: What steps he is taking to increase the size of the Northern Ireland economy.

Robin Walker: Northern Ireland is a leading destination for inward investment, with employment at a record high and unemployment at a record low. However, there is more to be done to unleash Northern Ireland’s economic potential. The UK Government are providing significant funding to Northern Ireland, including through a £1 billion Barnett-based investment guarantee and £562 million for city and growth deals that cover the whole of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: When the Minister discusses these matters with the Executive, will he consider discussing—along with corporation tax, which he should raise—the levels of VAT on tourism and air passenger duty? I understand that both have been reduced in the Republic of Ireland.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend raises some important points. Northern Ireland’s tourism potential is enormous. I can confirm that, as was previously committed, the Government are reviewing the devolution of APD, and that review is ongoing.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: We welcome the success of Invest NI and others in attracting investment to Northern Ireland, but it is essential that we continue to have unfettered access to our biggest market, which is Great Britain. Economic growth is dependent on that and we need the Government to honour their commitments to ensure that we continue to have that access in both directions.

Robin Walker: I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises. We will honour our commitments and have committed, through the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, to specific legislation on the issue. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman and the other parties on delivering that.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will the Minister indicate the timescale within which the Government hope to bring forward legislative measures? It is essential that business has the certainty that it needs at this time to take investment decisions.

Robin Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the commitment is to have the legislation in place by the end of the year, but there will of course have to be discussions through the usual channels as to the precise timing.

Simon Hoare: I thank the House for returning me to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
A strong economy requires access to a skilled, motivated workforce. Clearly, we have to ensure that the skills base in Northern Ireland is supported and grows, but will my hon. Friend assure me that the voice and needs of the Northern Irish economy will be heard loudly in the Home Office as we finesse our immigration policies?

Robin Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election as Chair of the Select Committee. He makes a very important point, which I have also heard loud and clear from Northern Ireland businesses. I think they welcome some of the indications from the Migration Advisory Committee report. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office will ensure that the concerns and interests of Northern Ireland businesses are communicated across Government, including to the Home Office.

Karen Bradley: The Minister is right to say that the Northern Ireland economy has enormous potential, and there is no doubt that restoration of the Executive will unlock a great amount of that potential. Will he also explain the benefits that the Northern Ireland economy will receive from being part of the fifth largest economy in the world—that of the United Kingdom?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend speaks with enormous knowledge of this area. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland’s economy benefits enormously from its membership of the United Kingdom, and there will be new opportunities for Northern Ireland as we trade more globally and strike new free trade deals around the world.

“New Decade, New Approach” Agreement

Liz Twist: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the allocation of funding to the Northern Ireland Executive for the implementation of the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement.

Julian Smith: Following the restoration of the institutions, I have of course been in frequent contact with the Chancellor and other Government colleagues to discuss the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement. This agreement, as we heard earlier, is supported by a generous financial package of £2 billion and also comes with strings attached, with reform required in health, education and justice. The new Finance Minister has already been to London to meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me.

Liz Twist: The “New Decade, New Approach” document was created not by the five parties in Northern Ireland but by the UK and Irish Governments. It has set high expectations among the public in Northern Ireland. Will the Government commit generously to fully funding this agreement?

Julian Smith: As the hon. Lady knows, this agreement has already delivered an end to the nurses’ strike in Northern Ireland. Having sat through hours of negotiation and discussion, I say to her that it was always clear that the parties had to prioritise what they wanted from Government. They are about to do that, and I look forward to hearing their plans in due course.

Northern Ireland Executive Restoration

Rob Roberts: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on Northern Ireland of the restoration of devolved Government.

John Lamont: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on Northern Ireland of the restoration of devolved Government.

Julian Smith: The “New Decade, New Approach” deal has restored decision making to locally accountable representatives in Northern Ireland and guarantees the Good Friday agreement. It has ended three years of stasis at Stormont and is already having a beneficial effect on Northern Ireland’s citizens.

Rob Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Conservative Government have demonstrated their commitment to strong devolved government and funding for all of our nations within this United Kingdom?

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have delivered in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and we are delivering on our commitments to the Union.

John Lamont: Over the past few years, this House has made a number of important decisions on very important devolved areas of government in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that locally elected politicians in Northern Ireland are best placed to make those local decisions?

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Ensuring that the Good Friday institutions are retained and enhanced was an absolute priority of the UK Government, and Northern Ireland is best served by the power-sharing agreement that is in place.

Paul Girvan: A stable Government needs confidence in the community. A Northern Ireland Minister was mentioned in a recent programme on the horrific murder of Paul Quinn. If that Minister— Mr Conor Murphy—has any information relating to that incident, he should make it known to both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda.

Julian Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. I condemn wholeheartedly that horrendous murder. As with any crime, anyone with information should come forward immediately.

Stephen Farry: Will the Secretary of State clarify his earlier answer in relation to the Stormont House agreement? He did not refer to it in detail but talked in generalities. A commitment was made recently in “New Decade, New Approach” and it was Government policy back in 2015. Is it still Government policy to fully deliver on Stormont House?

Julian Smith: What I have said is that we are going to deliver on the commitment of ending vexatious claims against our armed forces and police officers. I have also said that I will discuss with all Northern Ireland parties how we will deliver on all aspects of the “New Decade, New Approach” document.

Julian Lewis: Following on from that answer, can the Secretary of State confirm that the specific assurances given on Armistice Day last year about the ending of repeat investigations in the  absence of compelling new evidence is entirely compatible with the restoration of devolved government and all that that entails?

Julian Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work in this area. I was reading his Defence Committee’s 2017 report again at the weekend. I confirm that we can deliver on the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s priority of ending vexatious claims against our armed forces and the police, and we can deliver for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland.

Customs Regulations: Consistency

Wendy Chamberlain: What steps the Government is taking to ensure consistency in customs regulations throughout Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Robin Walker: The deal makes clear that Northern Ireland is in, and remains part of, the UK customs territory. It allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The arrangements that we introduce will reflect this.

Wendy Chamberlain: The Minister talks about unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, but according to a Treasury document leaked during the election campaign, firms will have to complete exit summary declarations—at a minimum—so I ask him again: will firms have to complete customs declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and if I ask that again in a future questions session, will he give the same answer?

Robin Walker: It is absolutely clear that the process of goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is within the control of the UK Government. We have made clear commitments with regard to ensuring unfettered access to the whole of the UK internal market.

EU Withdrawal Act: Effect on the Union

Alistair Carmichael: What assessment he has made of the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 on the Union.

Robin Walker: The deal implemented in domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 means that we have left the EU as one United Kingdom. The protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland guarantees Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK. This Government will never be neutral in expressing our support for the Union and our steadfast belief that Northern Ireland’s best interests are served within a strong United Kingdom.

Alistair Carmichael: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told us yesterday that we do not need a deal with the European Union. If he is right, what will that mean for the future of Northern Ireland in the Union?

Robin Walker: I think the point that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was making is that we already have a deal with the European Union; we have left the European Union with a deal, and that is good news for Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom.

EU Customs Declarations

Kerry McCarthy: Whether EU customs declarations will be undertaken in Belfast on goods imported from mainland UK after the UK has left the EU.

Robin Walker: As I stated earlier, the deal makes it crystal clear that Northern Ireland is in, and remains part of, the UK’s customs territory. It allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The arrangements we introduce will reflect this. As Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in the same customs territory, no tariffs will be due on goods coming from Great Britain and staying in Northern Ireland.

Kerry McCarthy: The European Commission released documents showing that EU import formalities on goods imported from the EU, such as customs declarations, would end up taking place in Belfast. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is struggling to hear what I am saying. Does he not think that the best way of ensuring that there are no barriers to trade would be to remain in the customs union?

Robin Walker: As the hon. Lady will recognise, there are specific arrangements in the protocol that protect Northern Ireland’s position with regard to trade with both Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is in the UK’s gift—and we will deliver on our commitments—to ensure that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to whole of the UK internal market.

Barnett Formula

Chris Stephens: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that additional funding allocated to Northern Ireland is subject to the Barnett formula.

Julian Smith: Here we go again from the SNP, but here we go again with the answer. As there has been no increase in UK Government departmental spending in England, there are no Barnett consequentials. Like previous Northern Ireland support packages, this funding addresses unique challenges, as was the case with city deals and support for farmers in Scotland and Wales.

Chris Stephens: We welcome the return of the new Executive and new moneys for Northern Ireland, but given the Prime Minister’s previously stated opposition to the Barnett formula, will the Secretary of State confirm for the record whether the Government still intend to abide by it?

Julian Smith: I can confirm that we absolutely plan to abide by the Barnett formula. That is why, as part of this Government’s commitments, we are levelling up across the nations of the United Kingdom.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that farming and fisheries are an important part of our local economy. He mentioned Barnett consequentials for farmers. Can he give specific assurances that farmers and fishermen will be looked after now that we have left the EU?

Julian Smith: I can confirm that we will look after everybody after we leave the EU, but I am also reticent, sitting so close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making any commitments about the forthcoming Budget.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before we start Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, for the first time, the House of Commons is starting a trial scheme to provide a British Sign Language interpretation of Prime Minister’s questions online. A signed version of the session is available live on parliamentlive.tv. Everyone deserves to be able to follow such a key moment in the parliamentary week, and I am committed to making our proceedings as accessible and clear as possible. I want to thank everyone who has worked hard to make this happen.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jamie Hamilton Wallis: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 February.

Boris Johnson: The whole House will want to pay tribute to the police and all the emergency services for their brave response to the terrorist incident in Streatham on Sunday. That appalling incident makes plain the case for immediate action, and we will shortly introduce emergency legislation to ensure that we do everything to protect the public.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jamie Hamilton Wallis: On behalf of my constituents in Bridgend, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on delivering on the promise made to the British people that we will leave the European Union? Will he reassure my constituents that, now that we are taking back control of our money, our borders and our laws, every effort will be made to bring jobs and investment to areas such as Bridgend that feel left behind?

Boris Johnson: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. With better education, better infrastructure and high technology, we will unite and level up this country and deliver, as he is doing for the people of Bridgend.

Jeremy Corbyn: We were all appalled by the terror attack in Streatham on Sunday, and I want to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of the police, security services and all the other emergency response staff for the way in which they dealt with a terrifying and terrible situation.
Last Friday, this country left the European Union. Britain’s place in the world is at a crossroads, and while there are different views across the country, we will be holding the Government to account as the negotiations begin. My hope is that we will now truly come together to shape our common future and build an internationalist, diverse and outward-looking country. Indeed, we will get an opportunity to do that when Britain hosts the UN climate change conference, COP26, later this year. Despite the fact that we are at the 11th hour to save the planet, the former Tory Minister and now ex-president of COP26 Claire O’Neill said that there has been a
“huge lack of leadership and engagement”
from this Government. What on earth did she mean?

Boris Johnson: If we look at what the Government are achieving and already have achieved on climate change, it is quite phenomenal. The right hon. Gentleman will know that last year was the first year on record that renewables produced more of this country’s energy than fossil fuels. He will know that 99% of all the solar panels that have achieved that miracle were installed since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. We are delivering for the people of this country. We are reducing greenhouse gases. All he would produce, I am afraid, is a load of hot air.

Jeremy Corbyn: The problem is, the Government’s own figures show that they are missing the carbon budget —let alone 2050, it will be 2099 before this country meets net zero.
We discovered this morning that two former Conservative leaders have also turned down the job formerly done by Claire O’Neill. It might be third time lucky if we make a joint approach to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—perhaps he would like to take on that job. He is in the Chamber, ready for it.
The Prime Minister’s own former Minister said that we should have “clear actions”, “an agreed plan” and
“a roadmap for the Year of Action”,
but we do not. Why is the Prime Minister failing so spectacularly to measure up to the scale of the climate crisis that this country and this planet are facing?

Boris Johnson: This is beyond satire. This is the first country, the first major economy in the world, to have set a target of being carbon neutral by 2050. It is an absolutely fantastic thing. We are leading the world in our ambitions, and we will have a wonderful summit in Glasgow, one of the most fantastic cities in our country, at the end of the year.

Jeremy Corbyn: This country is not meeting its target and it is not due to meet its target, and I think the Prime Minister should recognise that. Even the Paris targets are not enough. The UN says that we have just a decade to change course if we want to avert a climate catastrophe. Let us look at something else his ex-Minister said—that the Prime Minister promised to “lead from the front” and guaranteed there would be “money” and “people”, but these promises are not close to being met. What on earth could she have been talking about?

Boris Johnson: As so often, I am not entirely sure what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about, because if we look at what this Government have actually  delivered—if we look at our Conservative policies of backing green tech, of backing innovation, of supporting a dynamic market economy, which is the solution to these problems—we have cut CO2 emissions in this country since 2010, on 1990 levels, by 42%. That is an astonishing achievement, and at the same time, the economy has grown by 73%, thanks to free-market, dynamic, one nation Conservativism. That is our approach. What is his?

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister’s former Minister said: “My advice to”—[Interruption.] Well, Government Members may not like it, but I am going to read it:
“My advice to anybody to whom Boris is making promises—whether it is voters, world leaders, ministers, employees or…family members—is to get it in writing, get a lawyer to look at it and make sure the money is in the bank.”
Not my words—hers. The Prime Minister’s failure in government means this country will not meet its net zero target until 2099. This Government have banned offshore wind, and this Government are funding billions on fossil fuel projects abroad. Is this what his ex-Minister means by the “absence of leadership”?

Boris Johnson: I think the grotesque failure of the Leader of the Opposition to understand what is happening in this country’s economy, let alone in the fight against climate change, is quite mind-boggling. I can inform him today not just that this country is leading in producing the technology to generate offshore, but that the north-east of this country leads the world in producing and designing those fantastic turbines. It is because of that technological innovation that we are able massively to expand our renewables. I can tell him —I think he may know this—that in 1990 this country was 70% dependent on coal power. And, by the way, he would want to reopen the coalmines. Today, we are down to 3%, and by 2024 it will be zero. That is our plan. What is his?

Jeremy Corbyn: It was the Labour party that proposed the climate change emergency motion to this House on 1 May. The Prime Minister is quoting things that happened in 1990 and afterwards. During that time, of course, he was a climate sceptic who did not say anything about this at all.
Poor leadership is nothing new to this Prime Minister. When he was Foreign Secretary, he cut the number of climate attachés across the world by 60% in our embassies, and reportedly said to his staff, “You’re not going to spill this all out to the media, are you?” Considering his monumental failure in advance of COP26, is it not really just a continuation of his climate change denial statements that he was regularly making up until 2015?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. This Government are delivering a fantastic agenda in tackling climate change; we lead the world in going for a zero-carbon approach. His own approach is utterly unclear and has indeed been condemned by the GMB as a disaster for the UK economy. He would confiscate people’s cars and prevent them from having foreign holidays. We have a plan that will allow the UK economy to continue to grow and create jobs and that will tackle climate change.

Jeremy Corbyn: I really do admire the Prime Minister’s very vivid imagination, but unfortunately his vivid imagination seems to have taken over from his memory,  because he might recall saying that climate change is a “primitive fear…without foundation”. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh said:
“Any consequence of failure to deliver a climate action plan must fall equally on every country…the cost of our inaction is devastating for every living person”,
but our Prime Minister is failing on the biggest stage on the most important issue of our time. And now his former Minister has described preparations in Whitehall as
“Whitehall knot-tying, infighting and obfuscation, petty political squabbles and black ops briefings”.
No wonder the Prime Minister is shutting newspapers out of No. 10 because he does not like the briefings. When will he face up to the climate emergency and take the action necessary to turn Glasgow into the turning point when this world will stop the levels of pollution and climate change we are having and go forward to a sustainable future? Because his Government’s policies simply do not take us there.

Boris Johnson: This Government are showing world leadership in tackling climate change, and we are going to have a fantastic summit at Glasgow and I look forward to it very much.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the media. Labour finally conducted an inquest into what happened in the general election, and they discovered in the Labour party that it was not the leadership that was at fault, and it was not Brexit; it was the media. They blame the media for it. I do not blame them; I am a journalist—I love journalism. The people of this country do not blame the media; they can see that the media do their best to represent the reality, and the reality is that this is a Government who are getting on with delivering 40 new hospitals and 20,000 more police, tackling climate change, and £30,000 starting salaries for every teacher in the country. It is not about the presentation of the facts, it is about the reality, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot cope with the reality.

Darren George Henry: As MP for Broxtowe, I am absolutely delighted that funding is starting to flow to rebuild hospitals, such as the £5 million seed funding going to Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this Conservative Government are committed to fulfilling their manifesto pledges and will deliver for the NHS?

Boris Johnson: I agree passionately with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on all he has done to campaign for the redevelopment of Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham City Hospital, and of course I am proud that that money is now flowing through to those wonderful projects.

Ian Blackford: May I add my grateful thanks to the police and emergency services who had to react to the dreadful terrorist incident in Streatham?
In the first few days of Brexit Britain this Prime Minister has sacked an official, taken an isolationist approach to trade and banned the press from a Downing Street briefing; is he intentionally trying to impersonate Donald Trump?

Boris Johnson: I do not think anybody listening to my speech on Monday could have mistaken it for having anything but the most passionate internationalist, globalist, open, outward-looking approach. There is only one party in this country that has “nationalist” in its name; that’s them. They would break up the most successful political partnership of the last 300 years. The right hon. Gentleman and his party should concentrate on the day job and doing a better job for the people of Scotland.

Ian Blackford: The Prime Minister does not even know the name of our party. The Prime Minister is on a dangerous trajectory. Is it any wonder that poll after poll shows majority support for Scottish independence? Our former US ambassador has made clear the threat of a Tory-Trump trade deal, warning that drug prices could soar. This would see increased pressure on our frontline services. It is clearer than ever that this Government and this Prime Minister are a threat to our NHS. This afternoon the SNP will present our NHS protection Bill to remove the very real threat of Tory privatisation. Will the Prime Minister commit right now to supporting our legislation?

Boris Johnson: I think it is very odd that the right hon. Gentleman should denounce this country’s wish to have trade deals around the world when, as I understand it, their proposal is to try to re-join the European Union, and have a different currency, whose name they have yet to identify—perhaps they could elucidate that for the House—have a border at Berwick, and just after this country has taken back control of its outstanding marine wealth to hand it back to Brussels. That is their policy. I really think they should concentrate on doing a better job for the people of Scotland.

Michael Tomlinson: A strong society needs strong families, as our manifesto rightly said. It went on to say that we will champion family hubs to serve vulnerable families. Will the Prime Minister prioritise family hubs and ensure that they are linked to our early years strategy, the troubled families programme and children’s services reform?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. That is why we have given another £165 million to extend the troubled families programme this year.

Matt Western: In the past 10 years, violent crime has risen 152% across the towns of Warwickshire. In the past two weeks in my constituency, two people have been killed in two separate events and others remain seriously ill or injured. The Government have promised to reinstate 20,000 police officers, but is not the simple truth that it is now our residents, through hikes in council tax of 12% last year and 6% this year, who are picking up the whole bill for the Old Bill, and that the Conservative party is no longer the party of law and order but the party of fear and disorder?

Boris Johnson: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is making an important point about violent crime. I share his anger. That is why we are putting 20,000 more police on the streets. That is, above all, why we are now  tackling the county lines drugs gangs that are behind so much of the rise in violent crime. We will get that crime down.

Damian Green: The Prime Minister is conscious of the very widespread concern in this House about the plans to involve Huawei in 5G networks, concern that will have only been increased by the news this week that France is building a new 5G network without the involvement of Huawei, following the lead of Australia. If they can do, we could do it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he wants to reduce Huawei’s involvement over time, and can he give a timescale as to when that involvement will hit zero?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is certainly right that we are going to be reducing the involvement of Huawei below the 35% market cap, but he is also right in his general vision, which is one I entirely share. What has happened, I am afraid, is a failure of like-minded countries to produce an alternative to the 5G network except that provided by high-risk vendors. That is why we are now doubling the science budget. We will be working with some of the countries he mentions in order to produce exactly that diversification in the market.

Hywel Williams: In November last year, the personal independence payment assessment centre in my constituency was moved to Rhyl. No notice has ever been given of that change. The next bus from Caernarfon to Rhyl takes 1 hour 44 minutes, or in a case in point in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the bus from Barmouth to Rhyl takes 5 hours 15 minutes. This is the reality in the Prime Minister’s soaraway global Britain. Will he instruct his Minister to remedy this matter immediately?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point he raises. We do need to improve our bus services across the whole country and that is why we are investing another £250 million immediately to improve bus services. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has many more such investments in the pipeline.

Mark Logan: Sometimes we are the train, sometimes we are the track, and just last week we have taken control back. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for us to be the track for a Metrolink between Manchester and Bolton?

Boris Johnson: Yes indeed, and that is why—thanks partly to my hon. Friend’s urgings and his campaign—we have given the combined mayoral authority in Bolton £300 million under the transforming cities deal, plus a share of the £4.2 billion local transport fund. We have given it the tools—let us hope that it follows his urgings and builds the Metrolink that he wants.

Catherine West: Last Friday I visited a school in my constituency, and in 2020 the state of the school buildings was Dickensian, with leaking roofs, rusty shower rooms and mouldy changing areas. When will the Government understand that the cost of education is high, but that it  is a worthy investment in the future of our schools? Whether a child is a whizz kid or is needy, every child deserves to be at school in an excellent and inspiring school building.

Boris Johnson: That is exactly why this Government are investing a record £14 billion more in education, raising funding for primary schools to £4,000 per head and £5,000 per head for every secondary school in the country. We can only do that because we are running a strong and dynamic market economy, and that is what we are going to do.

Edward Timpson: To help to genuinely spread opportunity across our country, may I encourage my right hon. Friend to have a pre-Budget chat with his Chancellor about extending the Government’s welcome plans to reduce national insurance contributions for employers of ex-service personnel to other groups who find it difficult to get a good job, including care leavers, ex-offenders, those with a disability and the long-term unemployed?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend and his family for everything that they do to encourage ex-offenders into work. I will indeed take up that suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We cut taxes on working people. We cut national insurance. The Opposition would hike taxes and keep people in welfare.

Nadia Whittome: It has been two years since the Windrush scandal exposed the wrongful detention and deportation of Commonwealth citizens. While we wait for the much delayed publication of the lessons learned review, the Government plan to deport 50 people to Jamaica by charter flight next week. Will the Prime Minister immediately suspend the flight until the lessons learned review is published and the recommendations are implemented?

Boris Johnson: I think the whole House will understand that the people of this country will think it right to send back foreign national offenders.

Suella Braverman: The terrorist incident last week reminds us that the rule of law remains a fundamental foundation of our democratic constitution, but the explosion of judicial review and judicial activism has led to a censoriousness and litigiousness in our society and has distorted questions that ought to remain exclusively political. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Parliament remains the sovereign and legitimate source of law as we take back control?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and she is right to stick up for the immense value of our legal system. We must protect judicial review. It is a vital part of our system, but we should also ensure that it is not abused to conduct politics by other means or to create needless delay.

Mohammad Yasin: For many years, Bedford has been promised a new in-patient mental health facility, especially since provision at Weller Wing was closed in 2017, yet patients are still travelling 20 miles to access services. Will the Prime Minister explain how that demonstrates the parity of esteem for mental health care that his party promised in 2012?

Boris Johnson: We are putting record investment in the NHS—£33.9 billion—and a total of £12 billion is now going into mental healthcare. That is a record sum.

David Davis: Following on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) about Huawei, the Australian agencies analysed the involvement of any element of Huawei in their 5G system and determined that any involvement would lead to a major risk of both sabotage and espionage. Can the Prime Minister give an undertaking that this country will lead the Five Eyes and NATO to create an alternative to Huawei in the next two years?

Boris Johnson: Yes, we will of course do nothing either to endanger our critical national security infra- structure or to prejudice co-operation with Five Eyes partners, as my right hon. Friend has rightly suggested, and we will work to ensure that high-risk vendors cannot dominate our market.

Alex Davies-Jones: The Prime Minister will know that under his Government there has been a mass shortage of consultants across the UK, leading to strain on our A&E services. How will he make sure, especially now we have left the EU, that consultants from overseas are encouraged to apply for NHS visas to work in hospitals across the UK?

Boris Johnson: We have instituted NHS visas in order to attract talent from around the world, but I remind the hon. Lady, who I think speaks for a Welsh seat, that that is a devolved matter for the Welsh Labour Government.

Alicia Kearns: The Prime Minister has rightly put keeping our country safe and the NHS at the heart of the Government’s plans. Will he support my campaign for two new GP surgeries in my beautiful market towns of Oakham and Melton, and can I remind him that he is always welcome if he is in search of a pork pie, Rutland Bitter or stilton?

An hon. Member:: He’d probably eat them all.

Boris Johnson: That was rude. In response to my hon. Friend, the short answer is yes and yes.

Lilian Greenwood: Last week it was revealed that my constituent Errol Graham starved to death just months after the Department for Work and Pensions stopped his benefits. His emaciated body was only discovered when bailiffs broke down his front door to evict him. The first priority of Government is to keep their citizens safe. How many more vulnerable benefit claimants will have to die before this Government start to value their lives?

Boris Johnson: This is a tragic case, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. We have allocated £36 million to improve safeguarding and decision making in cases like this, including through the creation of a new independent serious case panel, which will enable us to scrutinise and learn lessons from such tragic cases. We are also improving guidance for staff.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending on behalf of the whole House our sympathy and best wishes to those injured in the Streatham attack last week? I welcome his intention to legislate as a consequence of this attack. Does he agree that Her Majesty’s Government now have no option but to legislate in order to contain the threat of ex-terrorist offenders when they still pose a threat to our country?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Most people in this country would agree that the system of automatic early release of terrorist offenders has run out of road and that it is time to find a way, as we are doing, to make sure they are properly scrutinised by a parole board or an equivalent.

Ruth Jones: Thanks to the tireless work of my predecessor, the late, great Paul Flynn, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), and the families of children with intractable epilepsy, medical cannabis is now legal in the UK, so can the Prime Minister answer calls from the families of very sick children who need medical cannabis as to when this medicine will actually be available on the NHS? Will he come to Portcullis House with me after this session to meet these families and to personally assure them that he will do all he can to help?

Boris Johnson: It was this Government and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary who legalised medicinal cannabis, and I undertake that he will certainly be happy to meet the hon. Member’s constituents this afternoon.

Alexander Stafford: Buses are a vital lifeline for residents in Rother Valley, but too often First Bus is letting down the people of South Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government fully back buses as an essential way not only to connect our villages, town and cities across the north, but to unlock the potential of Rother Valley and South Yorkshire?

Boris Johnson: The Government are passionate about buses. I assure my hon. Friend that we will massively improve our bus network, in the Rother Valley above all, and I thank him for his lobbying.

Owen Thompson: We know that the Prime Minister has form in ducking democratic scrutiny at every opportunity and that his   party is no stranger to receiving Russian donations, but his repeated refusal to publish the report on Russian interference in UK democracy is unjustifiable and unacceptable. Will he tell us clearly, without bluff and bluster, when the report will be published, why it has been delayed for so long, and when he will reconvene the Intelligence and Security Committee?

Boris Johnson: The report will of course be published—as the hon. Gentleman knows full well—when the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconstituted, and I think that his conspiratorial frame of mind is likely to be thoroughly disappointed by the results.

Dean Russell: Commuters in Watford are fed up with poor rail services making them late for work in the mornings and late returning home at night to see their families. Does the Prime Minister agree that even new rail franchises that do not deliver cannot assume that they will keep their contracts if they do not sort out those issues as soon as possible?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely, and that is why we are putting £48 billion into improving our railways as part of the infrastructure revolution. We should never forget that that lot over there would renationalise the railways. When railways were nationalised, a quarter of rail users deserted the network; after privatisation, rail use doubled.

Colum Eastwood: Last week we lost a political giant in Seamus Mallon. He was an outstanding parliamentarian, and a seeker of justice for everyone. One injustice that burned in him until his dying day was the murder of Paul Quinn, who was beaten to death by an IRA gang in 2007. They broke every single bone in his body, to the extent that his mother could not place rosary beads in his hands when he was in his coffin. In the aftermath, the now Finance Minister Conor Murphy said that Paul was linked to criminality. That was a lie. Does the Prime Minister agree that Conor Murphy should retract that lie, publicly apologise, and give any information that he has about Paul’s murder to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Boris Johnson: I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the whole House will have heard the passion with which he spoke about that injustice. I can tell him that we will implement the Stormont House agreement in such a way as to provide certainty for veterans, and, of course, justice for victims as well.

Points of Order

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Office press team told journalists that all the people on a deportation flight to Jamaica were serious criminals. That seems not to have been true, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) said earlier, the Government have not even received the lessons learned report.
The wife of a constituent of mine has said that he is due to be deported in just six days’ time. He was convicted under the now unlawful joint enterprise rule, and was released after two months. His wife fears that this stress will kill him because he has a heart problem. Mr Speaker, how can I get the Home Secretary to take this seriously and to be truthful about the people who are due to be on the deportation flight, so that we can halt it until we establish the true facts of the situation?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. As she knows, it is not a point of order for me personally, but I think that the whole House has sympathy with what she has said, I am sure that Ministers have heard it, and I am sure that someone will look into it as a matter of urgency.

Margaret Greenwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s Question Time On 22 January, responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
“Universal credit has in fact succeeded in getting 200,000 people into jobs.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 294.]
Correspondence that I received yesterday from Sir David Norgrove, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority—a copy of which has now been published on the authority’s website—shows that the Prime Minister’s claim was not correct. The 200,000 figure represents the Department for Work and Pensions’ estimate of the predicted impact on employment once universal credit has been rolled out, rather than the effect so far. Please will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how the Prime Minister could set the record straight?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her intention to raise that point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair to police the accuracy of statements in the Chamber, but she has rightly raised the issue, and her opinion has now been put on record. I am sure that there are other ways of raising it if she is still not happy.

Bills Presented

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Amesbury, supported by Emma Hardy, Kevin Hollinrake, Ms Marie Rimmer, Justin Madders, Stephanie Peacock, Grahame Morris, Layla Moran, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Paula Barker, Huw Merriman and Ian Mearns, presented a Bill to make provision for guidance to schools about the costs aspects of school uniform policies.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 10).

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Darren Jones presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator; to make provision about the Regulator and about the regulation of forensic science; to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual strategy on biometric technologies; to enable the Secretary of State to limit the use of such technologies when that is recommended in the strategy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 11).

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anna McMorrin, supported by Jim McMahon, Preet Kaur Gill, Gareth Thomas, Alex Sobel, Rosie Duffield, James Gray, Philip Dunne, Kevin Hollinrake, Alex Chalk, Caroline Lucas and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to enable co-operative and community benefit societies to raise external share capital for the purpose of making environmentally sustainable investment; to make associated provisions about restricting conversion to company status and the distribution of capital on winding-up; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 12).

Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Laura Trott, supported by Alberto Costa, Carolyn Harris, Judith Cummins, Jackie Doyle-Price, Caroline Nokes, Sarah Champion, Mr Kevan Jones, Dr Dan Poulter and Laura Farris, presented a Bill to make provision about the administration to persons under the age of 18 of botulinum toxin and of other substances for cosmetic purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 13).

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Loder presented a Bill to make provision about the mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 14).

National Minimum Wage Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paula Barker, supported by Mike Amesbury, Mick Whitley, Navendu Mishra, Ian Byrne, Apsana Begum, Kate Osborne, Rachel Hopkins, Beth Winter and Grahame Morris, presented a Bill to make provision about the national minimum wage; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Philip Dunne, supported by Theo Clarke, Fay Jones, Caroline Lucas, Scott Mann, Mr Andrew Mitchell,  Anne Marie Morris, Stephanie Peacock, Julian Sturdy, Derek Thomas, Sir Charles Walker and Bill Wiggin, presented a Bill to place a duty on water companies to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into rivers and other inland waters; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 16).

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Charles Walker, on behalf of Dame Cheryl Gillan, presented a Bill to make provision about substance testing in prisons and similar institutions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Control of Roadworks Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Mark Francois, supported by Sir David Amess, Craig Mackinlay and Mr Marcus Fysh, presented a Bill to set penalties for overrunning roadworks; to make requirements regarding the duration, timing and coordination of roadworks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Mental Health Admissions (Data) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Ben Spencer, supported by Jeremy Hunt, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr Gareth Bacon, Greg Smith and Stephen Timms, presented a Bill to make provision for the collection and publication of statistics on mental health hospital admissions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 19).

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bim Afolami presented a Bill to provide the British Library Board with a power to borrow money.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 20).

Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Philippa Whitford, supported by Peter Grant, Alison Thewliss, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Dr Julian Lewis, Kevin Hollinrake and Wera Hobhouse, presented a Bill to provide protections for whistleblowers; to create offences relating to the treatment of whistleblowers and the handling of whistleblowing cases; to establish an independent body to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing, in accordance with the public interest; to make provision for that body to set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, to provide disclosure and advice services, to direct whistleblowing investigations and to order redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers; to repeal the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; and for connected purposes
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Trade Agreements (Exclusion of National Health Services) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Peter Grant, supported by Dr Philippa Whitford, Paula Barker, Ben Lake, Claire Hanna, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Farry, Neale Hanvey and Joanna Cherry, presented a Bill to exclude requirements relating to National Health Services procurement, delivery or commissioning from international trade agreements; to require the consent of the House of Commons and the devolved legislatures to international trade agreements insofar as they relate to the National Health Services of England, Scotland and Wales and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alex Cunningham, supported by Alec Shelbrooke, Chris Stephens, Wayne David, Mike Amesbury, Mike Hill, Bridget Phillipson and Mary Glindon, presented a Bill to prohibit unpaid work experience exceeding four weeks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Liz Twist, on behalf of Mary Kelly Foy, supported by Liz Twist, Ian Mearns, Kate Osborne, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Mr Virendra Sharma, Claudia Webbe, Ian Byrne, Taiwo Owatemi, Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter and Rachel Hopkins, presented a Bill to impose duties on certain education and training providers in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Registers of Births and Deaths Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Andrew Mitchell, supported by Kevin Hollinrake, Amanda Solloway, Dame Margaret Hodge, Philip Dunne, Alison McGovern, Alex Chalk, Dr Philippa Whitford, Gary Sambrook, Gillian Keegan and Meg Hillier, presented a Bill to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Meat (Grading and Labelling) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bill Wiggin, supported by Mrs Pauline Latham, Mr Jonathan Lord, James Gray, Ben Lake, Andrew Griffith, Kevin Hollinrake, Mark Pritchard, Andrew Bowie, Mark Menzies, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger and Philip Dunne, presented a Bill to establish a meat grading system incorporating taste and eating quality; to define the term “grass-fed” when used in meat labelling and marketing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 26).

NHS 111 Service (Training and Clinical Oversight) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kate Osamor, supported by Feryal Clark, Taiwo Owatemi, Claudia Webbe, Nadia Whittome, Preet Kaur Gill, Florence Eshalomi, Yasmin Qureshi, Navendu Mishra, Apsana Begum, Bambos Charalambous and Tulip Siddiq, presented a Bill to set training standards for NHS 111 service operators; to require NHS 111 services to be overseen by clinical advisors; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 27).

Third Sector Organisations (Impact and Support) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Simon Fell presented a Bill to establish a body to assess the benefits and effectiveness of third sector organisations and provide support to such organisations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 28).

Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Patrick Grady, on behalf of Carol Monaghan, supported by Martin Docherty-Hughes, Kenny MacAskill, Alyn Smith, Patricia Gibson, Anne McLaughlin, Angela Crawley, Richard Thomson, Alan Brown, Kirsten Oswald, Dr Philippa Whitford and Patrick Grady, presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November and to be printed (Bill 29).

Opposition Day - [2nd Allotted Day]Opposition Day

Local Government Finance

Lindsay Hoyle: I advise the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Andrew Gwynne: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Government’s proposed changes to local authority funding will dramatically downgrade the importance of deprivation in deciding the distribution of funding to local authorities and will have a devastating effect on local adult social care funding; further notes that proposed changes will cause even greater reductions in foundation funding and children’s social care; and calls on the Government to scrap its Review of Local Authorities’ Relative Needs and Resources and to ensure that local authorities are properly funded through a fairer system that properly takes account of deprivation, need and differing council tax bases.
The state of local government finance is desperate. Our councils are not just at breaking point; many of them are broken. The Government’s so-called fair funding review could be about to make matters worse for some of them.

Catherine West: My hon. Friend is making an excellent start to his speech. How many councils does he think will fall like Northamptonshire County Council, in the next five years?

Andrew Gwynne: Of course that is the worry, because several councils are edging ever closer to the cliff edge, and the number that will drop over that cliff edge is very much dependent on the actions of this Government. If they honour their word and put resources into the local communities that need them most, hopefully we can avoid more Northamptonshires. However, if they continue along the lines that I fear they will, removing resources from the areas with the greatest need but the least ability to raise their own finances, I fear for the future of the local government sector.

Clive Betts: I am sure my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Local Governance Research Unit’s excellent annual survey of local government finances, which shows that 10% of councils are worried that their resources will be insufficient to meet their statutory duties. We could reach that clear tipping point unless the Government act.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will touch on that report later in my speech, but it highlights the impact of 10 years of cuts to our local councils and public services at a time of rising demand, particularly for adult social care and children’s services—the expensive people-based services. Given that the councils with greatest social need and the worst health inequalities have a limited tax base to make up for any financial losses, the problem is that the so-called fair funding formula could be what tips them over the edge.
I know that the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), will stand up and pronounce  that the finance settlement that we are set to agree next Wednesday shows that he is investing in local services, but he is a lone voice in saying so. That shows just how detached the Government are from the sector that they are here supposedly to represent, because the truth is that since 2015—just five years—local government funding across England has fallen by 32%.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that local government is also fearful of last week’s rumours that the Chancellor will ask Departments to cut another 5% from their budgets?

Andrew Gwynne: That is very worrying, and I hope the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will stand up against it. Those of us who have been a Member of this House for some time will remember that the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Lord Pickles, was only too keen to offer up the maximum cuts from his Department, meaning that local government in England was the part of the public sector that was clobbered the hardest.
It is even worse than the 32% fall over five years because, since the Conservative party entered government in 2010, funding for local councils has been slashed by more than half. We have all seen the consequences of that neglect: the unrepaired roads, the uncollected bins, the cuts to adult learning and the closed children’s centres. Under Conservative leadership, almost a fifth of our libraries have been forced to close because of cuts to funding. One of the previous Labour Government’s greatest achievements, the Sure Start programme, has had its funding slashed in half, forcing as many as 1,000 Sure Start children’s centres to close since 2010.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman is worried about the impact on the local authorities he mentioned because they cannot raise as much money through council tax. Does he accept that the shire districts get much less local government funding, so their council tax has to be much higher? It is only right that we consider a fairer funding formula, so that everybody pays a fair amount and receives a fair amount.

Andrew Gwynne: I will come on to the specific point of funding adult social care.
I will happily provide the statistics, but Liverpool, Knowsley, Blackpool, Kingston upon Hull and Middlesbrough are the five most deprived local authorities in England. Since 2010, Blackpool has lost 21% of its funding; Knowsley 25%; Liverpool 23%; Kingston upon Hull 22%; and Middlesbrough 21%. A 5% maximum increase in council tax in each of those local authorities will raise nothing like their loss of grant funding. That is not fair. If the fair funding review is carried out in the way that the Local Government Association suggests it might be, those most deprived communities will see even greater reductions in funding, and we know they will never be able to plug the gap through council tax alone.

Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for speaking about the cuts to children’s centres. Does he agree that when we hear about rising knife  crime, we have to attribute much of that increase to the year-on-year cuts to local government finances, youth services and youth justice? We should focus on investing in children’s provision, and especially in education and work opportunities.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been a Member long enough to remember the last Labour Government introducing Total Place, under which all the responsible agencies—the police, the housing associations, the local authorities and the central Government Departments—worked together to tackle many of these issues in the round. One of the devastating impacts of austerity over the past decade has been the breaking away from that collaboration, that partnership approach, to a situation where each agency tends to cost-shunt. Those agencies are making cuts, so it becomes somebody else’s problem—they push it on to another part of the public sector.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points about the situation in England. He may be aware of the fiscal analysis by the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, which shows that there has been about a £1 billion cut to local government finance in Wales over the past 10 years. I know this is a block grant situation, and that the block grant has been reduced in real terms, but Labour Ministers in Wales have decided to swing the axe at local government.

Andrew Gwynne: As the hon. Gentleman states, the block grant is set by this place, so the Welsh Assembly Government have had to ensure that their spending meets the money granted by Westminster. I have been sent a budget briefing from the Welsh Government about their intentions not only to increase the adult social care budget in the year ahead, but to give a real-terms increase in local government spending. I welcome that overwhelmingly, because Welsh councils, like English councils, need good public services.

Kevan Jones: Durham County Council has lost £224 million in core spending since 2010, and the Government’s direction of travel has been to move the expenditure on to the council tax precept. The problem for County Durham is that more than 50% of its properties are in band A so, irrespective of how much the council tax is put up, it will do nothing to plug the gap left by the reduction in core spending.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is right on that. Councils cannot change their council tax base overnight. If their properties are predominantly in bands A and B, that is the council tax base for that local area. Governments of all political persuasions over the years have always recognised that not every council has the same baseline and the same ability to bring in enough money for basic, decent statutory public services, which is why we had the rate support grant in the 1980s and the revenue support grant from the 1990s onwards. Those things were in recognition of the need for a redistribution of funding to areas that cannot generate enough funding from council tax and business rates alone.

Steve Double: May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that not all deprivation is found in urban areas, and that places such as Cornwall,  which have had a raw deal on central Government funding because of the formula put in place by the Labour party, have for decades received lower levels of funding, despite being some of the poorest parts of England? It is this Government, with the fair funding review, who are going to put that right.

Andrew Gwynne: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the fair funding review. I have never said that deprivation exists only in urban areas. Deprivation is a fundamental part of the formula that exists now, so if there is deprivation in his constituency—and it is more likely that there is—his council will get an element of formula attributed to that deprivation. But to take money from some of the poorest communities in the country in order to give it to the richest communities in the country, which have the ability to raise sufficient locally, is not one nation—it is reverse redistribution, and it is penalising the poorest councils and the poorest communities. He should reflect on what he has said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: I will give way a little later on, because I have been generous so far.
The Tory-led Local Government Association estimates that if we continue on this current course, the funding gap will grow to £8 billion by 2025. That is an £8 billion gap not to rebuild our services after 10 years of cuts, but just to stay still: just to prevent already heavily stretched services from falling apart under the weight of growing demand, rising costs and wage inflation. I reiterate: it is £8 billion more needed just to stay as we are today. So, even if this £8 billion funding was provided, in full, by 2025, it would barely keep the sector’s head above water, allowing councils to continue delivering services at current levels, with no capacity to meet the growing need for services. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister considers that a sustainable way to finance the sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, has mentioned in an intervention, research published today by the Local Government Information Unit shows that 73% of councils would not agree with Ministers. The Chief Executive of the LGIU has warned:
“Our social care system is no longer on the edge, it’s fallen off the cliff. Our children’s services aren’t at breaking point, they’re broken.”
That has real-life consequences: Age UK estimates that in the past two years alone, 74,000 older people died waiting for care. An average of 81 people a day, equivalent to three every hour, died before they received the care that they needed. This is not a political point; it should shame each and every one of us, on whichever side of this House we sit. Age UK states that 1.4 million older people are not getting the help that they need to carry out essential tasks such as washing themselves, dressing and going to the toilet. That is not just unacceptable; it is appalling. It is a stain on this House—on all of us—and on our country.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Birmingham City Council and the great city of Birmingham have been hit hard by the biggest cuts in local government history—cuts of £700 million—with children’s centres and youth clubs closing, and social care and special needs provision being cut. Does he agree that it is fundamentally  wrong, not only that the vulnerable have been hit as hard as they have, but that Birmingham reels from those cuts while the leafy shires of Surrey get yet more?

Andrew Gwynne: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for not only local government across the country, but that great city of Birmingham, fighting the devastation that has befallen that great city. On the LGA’s own statistics, a further £48 million in adult social care funding could be removed from Birmingham to add to the devastation that has already hit his city. That is why the fair funding review is so unfair and wrong.
According to the King’s Fund—so this is not coming just from the LGIU—by the end of the next decade the number of older people who need adult social care support is predicted to increase to 4.1 million. That is piling even more cost pressures on our local councils, which is why the LGIU also highlights the increase in financial pressures on children’s services, as adult social care is only one part of the very costly equation that is people-based services—the services that councils, by law and by right, have to provide. Mrs Smith, on any street of any town in any shire, thinks that her council tax increases are going towards ever-reducing bin services, and she sees parks not being maintained and libraries closing. That is because she never sees the impact on adult social care and children’s services.
On children’s services, the LGIU argues that councils are no longer able to shield vulnerable children from the worst of the budgetary pressures that councils are facing. More than one in three councils said their inability to protect vulnerable children was their biggest concern. We know that there are unprecedented demand pressures on children’s services. The number of children in care has hit a 10-year high, but without the funding to support that increase in demand.
From 2009 to 2019, the number of section 47 inquiries—that is, where a local authority believes that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm—has increased by 139%. The Local Government Association warns that children’s services alone are facing a £3.5 billion funding gap by 2025. It is these pressures on people-based services that are pushing many councils towards the cliff edge, and sticking plasters will no longer suffice. The Minister will no doubt say that he gave £1 billion to be shared by adult social care, children’s services and provision for NHS winter pressures. That is not enough.

Kevin Hollinrake: We have discussed this before, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have cross-party talks on adult social care? One of the Select Committee’s key recommendations was that adult social care funding should be removed entirely from local authority pressures and we should adopt a German-style social insurance system. Does he agree that we should have cross-party discussions and that that should be one of the options on the table?

Andrew Gwynne: As I have said in previous debates, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with proposals. We are still waiting for the Green Paper promised in the last Parliament and the Parliament before that. The fact of the general election is that the hon. Gentleman’s party is in power and it is incumbent on Ministers to come to this House to explain how they are going to try to resolve this crisis in adult social care.
We will sit down with Ministers. We have our own ideas. We will share ideas with the Government. We will come to some kind of consensus if we can. But of course the history on this is not great; I remember the former Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, having cross-party talks in the dying days of the Labour Government, and it looked as though we were getting agreement with the shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—until the general election came, and then there were posters everywhere saying, “Labour’s death tax” and “Andy Burnham’s death tax”. We have to move away from that and tackle this issue seriously.

James Cartlidge: Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), a few weeks ago I intervened on the shadow Health spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), to ask whether he would support social insurance. He flatly ruled it out. All we are asking is that if we are going to have cross-party talks, surely all credible options should be on the table.

Andrew Gwynne: I reiterate what I just said: it is for the Conservatives to come forward with their proposals. We will view those in the round with other ideas and see whether we can reach a consensus. I know that there are different views on both sides of the House about a system of insurance, but I am not personally in favour of that. I think that actually the easiest and quickest way to resolve the social care crisis in local government is to make sure that we fund social care through local government.
I want to come on to the issue that could make the situation that I have set out even worse for many of the same local authorities that are already at breaking point. The research from the Local Government Association has exposed the so-called fair funding review for what it really is: a cynical plan that risks leaving more sick and vulnerable people without the care they need. If implemented in the way that the LGA has calculated—and MHCLG apparently told the LGA that its assumptions were along the lines that the Ministry is going—then funding for social care for older people is due to drop in London, the west midlands, the north-east and the north-west, while the south-east and the south-west will see an increase in many areas. For young adults, the largest decreases will be seen in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire, the east midlands and west midlands, while the south-east and east of England will see some of the largest increases.
This research from the Tory-led LGA has shown that many of the areas that voted for, and put their trust in, the Conservatives for the first time in 2019—the so-called red wall seats—will see some of the largest cuts to social care funding if the plans go ahead in the way that has been outlined. Indeed, three quarters of those red wall constituencies—the seats that gave the Prime Minister his majority—will see millions of pounds of funding diverted from their hard-pressed councils to another part of the country. The LGA Labour group estimates that that is £300 million of funding that will be funnelled from less affluent councils to the more affluent communities.
But even worse than both those factors is the effect that there will be on the most deprived communities. The 10 most deprived local authorities in England will  see, on average, a 13% cut, while the wealthiest communities in England will see their budgets grow by 13%. This model was devised back in 2014 at the height of coalition austerity; perhaps it was then politically expedient for the Conservatives to divert funds to leafy Tory shires at the expense of more deprived metropolitan and urban communities. But given that the Prime Minister’s claim that austerity is over, divvying up an ever-shrinking pot differently is so last Parliament—in fact, it is so the last two Parliaments before the last Parliament—and it is certainly no longer politically expedient.
Last week, I wrote a letter, with council leaders, to the red wall Members on the Government Benches, urging them to speak out against a plan that will see cuts to adult social care—one of the largest cost pressures facing all local councils, particularly those in deprived areas. I know from some of the responses that Government Members have given to the press that the calculations from the LGA have been dismissed as speculation. I say to those Members that this analysis was produced by the cross-party LGA and was released officially to support councils as they plan their budgets in the coming years. The analysis that the LGA produced was also informally shared with MHCLG, whose officials privately confirmed that the assumptions in the analysis are sound.
This new research is also consistent with what we already knew. Last year, researchers in Liverpool warned that removing deprivation from the funding formula would see the 20% most deprived areas lose £390 million a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that removing deprivation from the formula would likely hit councils in inner London and most other urban areas, like Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol and Kingston upon Hull, where deprivation tends to be not just concentrated but over-concentrated. The IFS states that
“proposals by the government to base assessments of councils’ needs for spending on services like homelessness prevention, public transport, waste collection, libraries, and planning on population only would shift funding from councils serving deprived areas to those serving more affluent areas.”
It has also warned that the evidence base to justify this decision is weak.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Gwynne: I will give way one last time.

Kevan Jones: It is not just about social care. County Durham, under the formula that is proposed, is likely to lose £39 million in public health funding, whereas Surrey County Council will actually increase its budget by £14 million. I look forward to my new Conservative colleagues in County Durham arguing how that can be fair to County Durham.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just about social care, but the LGA has published the fair funding review calculations based on social care. It has also done the calculations for children’s services, for the foundation formula and for the public health grant. I would hazard a guess that they show exactly the same trends. He is absolutely right about County Durham, because the LGA’s analysis shows that the change in funding there since 2015 alone is already 29% down. The change in funding from the fair funding formula would equate to another 6.71% reduction—a £10,327,679 cut—for his constituency. Contrast that with Beaconsfield, for example, where  there would be a 17.5% increase—nearly an extra £15 million of funding. That is not fair by any stretch of the imagination.
The issue is really straightforward for the Government. If they do not agree with the analysis, the response is simple: follow up on the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), at the LGA conference in January and publish the exemplifications of the funding formula so that we can see exactly what the impact is. It really is that simple. If the LGA assumptions are now wrong, show us. Let councils, councillors and Members of this House see the exemplifications; we will then know how fair the fair funding review is to the different parts of England.
My worry is that what we know is just the thin end of the wedge. We know that the five least-deprived local authorities have, on average, seen their budgets grow—the least deprived local authority, Wokingham, saw its budget grow by 18%—but that has been gained at the expense of the most deprived. The top 5% most deprived local authorities face cuts of 22% on average. That is not fair. As I said at the start of my contribution, we know that those same local authorities do not have the same ability to raise income from council tax.
This is a scandal for those who claim to be one nation Conservatives. I genuinely believe that across all political parties not one of us stood for election to come to this place and introduce measures that will make life more difficult not just for the people we represent but for the poorest communities in this country. I like to give the benefit of the doubt even to Members from the Conservative party, so I hope that today Members from all parties will support our motion, or at the very least intensively and strenuously lobby Ministers and take a stand against what could cause misery for their constituents. This will be a major test of Conservative Members’ commitment to their constituents. I am sure that local people will not forgive or forget if they fail to stand up for those who put their trust in them at the election, knowing what we already know.
Finally, I say this to Ministers: be open, be transparent and publish the exemplifications. If they are anything like what the LGA, the LGIU and other local government experts fear, scrap the scheme and go back to the drawing board. A fair funding review that is genuinely fair will have our support.

Jake Berry: I hope you will bear with me a moment, Mr Speaker, because this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak in a debate with you in the Chair as Speaker. As the MP for an adjoining constituency and a fellow Lancastrian, I congratulate you on the amazing start you have made as Speaker. You have restored gravitas to the office of Speaker and you are doing an excellent job.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement, which will deliver the biggest year-on-year real terms increase in councils’ spending power for a decade; recognises the pressures on adult and children’s social care as well as critical local government services, and welcomes the additional £1.5 billion  available for social care in 2020-21; notes that the Government has listened to calls for a simpler, up-to-date, evidence based funding formula and has committed to consult on all aspects of the formula review in spring 2020; further welcomes the Government’s ambition to empower communities and level up local powers through a future Devolution White Paper; and welcomes the Government’s progress on this agenda already with the £3.6bn Towns Fund and eight Devolution Deals now agreed.”.
As we entered a new decade, this country voted emphatically for a new Government and a new approach. People discarded the politics of division and deadlock that had beset the previous Parliament for so many years. It was the people who gave a new mandate to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to drive forward his vision for our nation—a vision that will see communities levelled up and opportunity spread equally throughout the country, just as talent is already spread. We will level up every single nation of the United Kingdom and drive forward our Government’s agenda.
What have we heard today from the Labour party and the Opposition spokesman? They have learned nothing from their December drubbing—nothing from the people of Redcar in the north-east, nothing from the people of Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester and nothing from the people of the Don Valley in Yorkshire. Each of those areas, which had been Labour—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to talk about the general election, which was the worst Labour performance for a generation, but we have a mandate and I intend to set out what that mandate means, in line with our amendment. Each of those areas, which had been Labour for a generation, rejected the politics that we heard from the Opposition today.
Let us not forget—although I bet he wishes we would—that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) was the general election campaign co-ordinator for the Labour party. Like a Japanese soldier emerging out of the jungle decades after they have lost the battle, he has chosen to return to Labour’s failed policies of division and deadlock. We heard him pit urban areas against rural areas, towns against cities and local government against national Government. It is absolutely clear that only the Conservative party—

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Jake Berry: Not at the moment. It is absolutely clear—

Lyn Brown: Why not?

Jake Berry: I will give way in a moment.
It is absolutely clear that only the Conservative party has a mandate to unite our nation as we move forward from a decade of recovery to a decade of renewal.

Lyn Brown: rose—

Jake Berry: With the greatest of pleasure, I give way to the hon. Lady.

Lyn Brown: I am really grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he let me know where the Secretary of State is while we are discussing local government finance? I am grateful to see the right hon.  Gentleman in his place, giving us a speech, but I would quite like to hear from the organ grinder what is going to happen with local government finance.

Jake Berry: I am disappointed that the hon. Lady thinks I am the monkey.

Lyn Brown: indicated dissent.

Jake Berry: Well, I am not the organ grinder, as she has pointed out, so I must be the monkey. We have a broad team, and given that a lot of the claims made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish relate directly to the north of England, I think that as the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse I am the most appropriate Minister to respond to this debate.

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend’s mandate extends to God’s own county of Hampshire, where we are very much looking forward to the fair funding review on the grounds that we get to spend £1,650 per person, but we look north to the local authorities that have been enumerated today that have an additional £500 per person. We spend—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sir Desmond, you are usually very good and ask the shortest of questions and make the briefest of interventions. I do not know what has gone wrong but I am sure the Minister will have a grasp of what you were saying.

Jake Berry: As my right hon. Friend knows, the fair funding review is under development, so we are unable to say today whether Hampshire will benefit more than any other area of the country, but his point about having a fair funding review that makes sure that we accurately reflect need throughout the country is absolutely right.

Alicia Kearns: I am confused on that exact point. The new funding formula has not been published, yet the Labour Front-Bench team claim to know exactly what it is going to be. They also claim that the shires are going to benefit, yet Leicestershire and Rutland are the worst funded in the country, so the idea that the shires will do best out of this is most inaccurate. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Jake Berry: I do agree. I wonder how much attention the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish pays to his horoscope, because that prediction that has as much accuracy as the figures he has gone through today. Of course, the LGA itself said—in what was an extraordinary intervention from its chairman—that the figures were based on an old formula. It acknowledged that a new formula was being worked on and that therefore no further predictions could be made from those figures.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; the Opposition spokesman refused seven times.
Gloucester City Council provisionally gets 1.4%, compared with 6.3% for the country as a whole and 3.4% for all second-tier councils. While my right hon. Friend is doing the consultation, will he look closely at  whether second-tier councils, particularly city councils with small amounts of space with which to benefit from the new homes bonus, could be given special consideration? Also, could he raise the council tax referendum limit from 2% to 3%? That would help us to raise funds locally.

Jake Berry: I will get on shortly to the issue of council tax referendum limits. We continue to engage with colleagues across our local government family, on both sides of the political divide. If we have not engaged directly with Gloucester yet, I will ensure that we do so as part of our discussions.
Building on the mandate given in December to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I want to set out how we will unite and level up our nation. We will devolve more power, money and influence back to communities across England. We will restore opportunity to our towns through our £3.6 billion towns fund, and we will work with every single local authority to make sure that they are the engines for economic growth in their community. This will be supported by the most generous financial settlement for a decade, while always ensuring that they have the resources to support the most vulnerable in society.
This Government are proudly the father and mother of English devolution to our regions. In the past three years, we have seen the creation of powerful metro Mayors in Liverpool, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle North of Tyne, the West of England, the West Midlands and Tees Valley. Together, those mayoral combined authorities have access to £6.35 billion of investment funding, more than £1 billion of the transforming cities fund, and £1.5 billion of the adult education budget.
We understand, however, that it is not possible to measure how well devolution is working simply by looking at how much money is being received. The real power of devolution comes through putting power back in the hands of local people, and that is why devolution works.

Tim Farron: I am fully supportive—as we were during the coalition—of the Government’s plans to devolve power to the regions of England and to local authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, though, that if this is about local people making local decisions, they should not be forced to accept a Mayor or, if they are a rural community, a particular urban-type structure in order to get those powers?

Jake Berry: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the recent discussions that have taken place with local authority leaders across Cumbria. I know that he has influence over his own local authorities, and I am heartened by the open-hearted and open-handed way in which they have approached those discussions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been clear that we should seek mayoral combined authorities across the entirety of the north of England. It is my view that if we want to truly empower communities, a powerful, locally elected, singularly accountable individual is the best way of doing it. I hope that we will shortly be able to progress further devolution deals and discussions across Cumbria.
As I have said, devolution does work. It is already paying dividends, with funding and metro Mayors delivering programmes that local people want. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might want to listen to this. I am sure that the completion of the A6 relief road to Manchester airport in Greater Manchester has assisted him and his constituents to get around the north-west of England. I know it helps me. It was done by the Labour Mayor for Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.
In Liverpool, we are supporting new rolling stock on Merseyrail. That is important to me—I went to school on those trains and did not know that 35 years later people would be going to school on the same trains. There is a new train maintenance and technology training academy and the largest rolling stock modernisation facility in the country, creating hundreds of new high-quality, high-skilled jobs, in co-operation and collaboration with Steve Rotheram, the Labour Mayor of Liverpool. In the west midlands, the extraordinary Andy Street is investing £207 million to extend the West Midlands Metro system, re-opening railway lines and stations. That is all being done by metro Mayors.
Of course, those decisions could have been made in Whitehall but, I think as everyone knows, the process would have been slower, they would not necessarily have reflected local priorities, and crucially, picking up on the hon. Gentleman’s recent comments, they would have lacked the local democratic legitimacy of decisions made by single accountable elected individuals. It is precisely because devolution works that we intend to go further and faster. We will unleash the potential of all of our regions, delivering on the priorities of this people’s Government to level up everywhere.

Clive Betts: May I begin by thanking the Minister for his continued support for devolution to the Sheffield city region and south Yorkshire? I think we have just about got there. That is very welcome.
The Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government has in the past commented on the fact that, so far, devolution has been about powers being transferred to mayoral combined authorities in certain areas. Initially, the Government were going to allow 100% business rate retention, which would have meant more money and more powers to local government across the country. Will the Government have another look at that proposal, to see whether all councils should now benefit from devolved powers?

Jake Berry: I am very pleased that we are making such good progress in south Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman and I, along with many colleagues across the House, welcome that. He is correct to say that mayoral combined authorities have retained their 100% business rate retention for next year. Following the successful pilots, including in areas such as Lancashire—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) and I have benefited from that—any further business rate retention will be part of the spending review process.
Devolution is particularly pertinent to areas such as south Yorkshire. Every deal so far has been bespoke, but as part of our ambition to level up powers we have written to every existing regional Mayor and asked them to take on new powers so that they can truly drive the ambition for the region. I am delighted to tell the House that one of the first to respond was Ben Houchen, the Mayor for Tees Valley. Not only has he made the  Tees fly again, by saving Tees Valley airport; he is also making his economy fly again, by working with the Government on a suite of new powers to unleash the full potential of Teesside and everyone who lives there. In addition, the Government are talking to Cumbria, West Yorkshire, East Riding, Hull, County Durham and Lancashire about their ambitions for change in their areas.
Already, 50% of communities in the north have, to coin a phrase, taken back control through devolution. More areas want to be part of our devolution revolution, and we will ensure that they get that opportunity. Later this year, the Government will publish their devolution White Paper, setting out the Government’s ambition for full devolution across England. Through this White Paper, we will work with everyone in our local government family to ensure that they are truly empowered to be partners in growth.
As this Government unite and level up cities, towns and coastal and rural areas across our country, we acknowledge that our town centres are absolutely at the heart of a growing economy. They are the ground on which local jobs are created and small businesses are nurtured, and they inject billions of pounds into the local economy. That is why, through our £3.6 billion town deal fund, we are directly intervening in local communities. We are working with local areas and councils on more than 200 investment plans that have the potential to transform their economies.
The local Member of Parliament is able to sit on the town deal board in each and every one of our town deal areas. That ensures that Members of Parliament from across this House, whichever party they represent, have the opportunity to be an active part of the conversation in driving local growth in their communities. This is a new approach that I cannot recall previous Governments taking. It is about drawing on the talents of every single Member of this House with a town deal.
I now want to briefly mention the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)—this will probably ruin his career. He attended his first town board meeting on 23 January. He then approached me just outside the Division Lobby, fizzing with enthusiasm.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be wrong but I thought this debate was entitled “Local Government Finance”. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on the Front Bench made a very good speech about finance, but we have heard very little about it from the Minister, who has talked instead about devolution and other things to do with local government. Could I have some advice, please?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think if we look in detail at both speeches, we will see that they are around the finance package and the delivery of different projects. I think there is an interconnection there, but I am sure that if we did drift too far the Minister would come straight back into line. For the moment, I am more than happy.

Jake Berry: I suggest to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that he read page 8 of the Order Paper. The Government’s amendment says that the Government will set out the devolution White Paper and mentions
“the £3.6bn Towns Fund and eight Devolution Deals now agreed.”
He is a very experienced Member of this House, so I am surprised that he has not yet learned to read the Order Paper in the morning.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has done exactly what he wanted to, Minister, which was to get you riled. That is why his experience is best ignored at times.

Jake Berry: Well, we are having fun.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for St Helens North approached me outside the Division Lobby, fizzing with excitement. He is embedded on his town board, and is putting aside political differences to work closely with this Government, challenging us on our towns fund and ensuring that he can deliver real benefits for his community.
It is only because this Government had the determination to deliver the will of the British people and we have now left the European Union that we can seize the opportunities that lie ahead. We will drive devolution, and level up our communities and nations, while at the same time beginning an era of new investment in public services. Back in 2010 we were forced to make some difficult decisions, but we had inherited the highest deficit in the nation’s history and an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession in 70 years. The public purse was overstretched, the overdraft limit had been reached and the credit card was maxed out. In truth, there was no money left and the economy was on the brink. It is exactly because we took those difficult decisions that we can now bring forward our ambitious plans and aims for local government finance for the months and years ahead. I am determined that local government will receive the resources it needs to support its communities, and continue to innovate and deliver cost-effective services for its residents. This year will see a spending review in which we will move forward with a longer-term settlement, providing the sector with the certainty and confidence it needs to properly plan for the future.
As the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, we also plan to review the formula used to distribute money between local authorities in order to ensure that we can use the resources in the most efficient and effective way. I will say more about that later. However, I briefly want to address why the Government brought forward a one-year funding settlement for local government. In advance of leaving the European Union, it was right that we sought rapidly and urgently to bring stability and certainty to our local government sector. This meant carrying out a one-year spending review at record pace, followed by a post-election local government finance settlement, which we published as soon as we could after the election. Building on that settlement, we now have a series of bold and ambitious plans for a local government finance settlement in the financial year 2020-21 that has been devised in close collaboration with colleagues across the local government sector.
Under these proposals, core spending power for local authorities in England will increase from £46.2 billion to £49.1 billion in 2020-21. This equates to a 6.3% increase in cash terms, or a 4.4% increase in real terms—the largest increase for a decade. The shadow Secretary of State spoke at some length about adult social care, and  this Government are steadfast in our commitment to protecting the millions of people who rely upon those essential services. That is why we propose to inject an additional £1 billion of new funding into the social care grant, with £150 million used to equalise the distributional impact of the adult social care precept, and continue the £410 million of the previous year’s allocations. Overall, that means that local authorities will have access to £6 billion across adult and children’s social care next year. However, our commitment to boosting social care and investment spans much further than just that one-year settlement, which is why we pledged to maintain the £1 billion of new funding to the social care grant for the duration of this Parliament, enabling local authorities to continue with long-term planning and driving improvements in the essential core services.
It was deeply irresponsible for the shadow Secretary of State to scaremonger about the figures from the LGA. He knows that those figures are at best an estimate and that they are based on old formulas, including the old area cost adjustment, which we are changing. If we thought it worked, we would not be doing the fairer funding review, so he should think on before he scares some of the most vulnerable people in society with stories about cuts and figures that are not based on the true formula.
The shadow Secretary of State claims to be a great champion of local government, so I will give him the opportunity to intervene on me in a moment. I wonder whether he can recall what he was doing on the evening of 10 February 2016—would he like to intervene? He cannot remember. I can remember. I was in the Aye Lobby with my colleagues, voting for the social care precept, enabling local councils to prioritise social care. He was in the No Lobby, voting against more money going to councils to finance social care. That one measure alone has raised an estimated £7 billion for adult social care since it was introduced. Perhaps when he is lecturing Government Members about support for adult social care, he should recall what he was doing when local authorities and the vulnerable in society needed him; he was pursuing narrow, party political lines and voting against the social care precept.

Andrew Gwynne: If we are throwing accusations about, perhaps the Minister can tell me what the social care funding gap in Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council is this year, and how much the social care levy raises.

Jake Berry: I am not throwing accusations around. I suggest the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard because whatever the funding gap may be, it would have been much bigger if he and his colleagues had got their way. He voted against more funding for social care, and I suggest he remembers that when he is giving out the lectures.
In addition to helping councils address the complexity around the delivery of social care, I recognise that councils in rural communities face some unique challenges. The services they provide are often delivered over a long distance, to disparate communities. That is why we are proposing to continue the rural services delivery grant at £81 million—the highest ever to date. This funding will continue to support residents in rural counties— including Labour-controlled Cumbria, which is a beneficiary of it and which I am sure welcomes the funding, given  the challenges it faces around rurality—and people who live far from local services so rely on them being delivered by their council.
We have consulted widely on negative revenue support grant, and have concluded that eliminating negative RSG through business rates income, at a cost of £152.9 million, is the right thing to do. This will deliver on the Government’s long-term commitment to the principle of sustainable growth incentives in the funding settlement.
The new homes bonus is a very important part of how we fund local councils. It rewards councils that do the right thing by building new houses to help tackle our housing crisis. We want to ensure that they continue to be incentivised, which is why we will provide £907 million of new homes bonus allocations this year.
Council tax for the average dwelling went up by 112% under the last Labour Government. That’s right—Labour doubled people’s local council tax. Of course, in Wales they have managed to triple it, but they only doubled it here in England. That is why this Government have made a commitment to give local residents the final say on excessive council tax increases. We are determined, in a way that no Labour Government ever were, to protect the interests of hard-working taxpayers while granting local authorities the flexibility they need to raise resources to meet their needs. For this reason, we propose to continue with the council tax referendum limits.

Andrew Gwynne: You can’t have it both ways, Jake.

Jake Berry: If we double the council tax that is paid by local people, then I will start to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman about what we should do. He should remember his own record. He entered Parliament in 2005 and was here when all this was happening; perhaps he would like to recall that.
Taken as a whole, this protection will mean that we see the lowest average council tax rise since 2016, ensuring that taxpayers continue to receive the breadth and quality of services that they enjoy today without, as they had under former Labour Administrations, the imposition of crippling tax hikes and rocketing monthly bills.
As we look towards future settlements, the Government intend to conduct a full multi-year spending review. We are already putting more money in this year, but the spending review will give us the opportunity once again to look at pressures in the round and provide councils with the certainty they need. We have committed to a fundamental review of business rates. As part of that work, we will need to consider carefully the link between the review and retention by local councils. We will of course continue to discuss that and the future direction with our partners in local authorities.
Everyone in this House wants to refresh the way we allocate funding, so that it reflects the most up-to-date needs and resources of local areas. That is key work to achieve the agenda set out by the Prime Minister, because dealing with local government finance is part of levelling up our entire country. We have made good progress with the review of relative needs and resources—or the fair funding review, as it is known—and I want to take this opportunity to thank Members on both sides of the House, some of whom have made constructive contributions to the process. The direction of the review has been welcomed by many, including many in local government,  but now we have to deliver a sustainable approach, and we look forward to continuing to work with the whole sector.
The review is a large and complex project. Expectations are high on all sides, which is why we are committed to sharing emerging results with local government as soon as possible. We plan to share significant elements for technical discussions in the coming weeks and months. That will include formulas in the review that represent a majority of local government spending. However, I should remind Members that needs formulas represent only a small aspect of the review. As the LGA pointed out, it is simply not possible to predict the overall outcome for individual local authorities or groups of authorities and therefore the extent to which funding may move between authorities. Of course, we will need to consider the review in the context of the outcome of the planned spending review. We look forward to working with colleagues and sharing those results with the sector and the House shortly. I also look forward to updating the House once we have finalised proposals for our new and exciting settlement for local government. Finally—

Kevan Jones: Hooray!

Jake Berry: I have more—I can keep going.
I welcome the subject of today’s debate, because it gives us an opportunity to look at the exciting programme that this Government have for devolution, levelling up and supporting our towns. However, it would be remiss of any Member not to take this opportunity to thank everyone who works in local government. I often feel that being a councillor is a thankless task, and I want to ensure that they hear a clear message from this House today that, on a cross-party basis, we thank them and support them in their work. Of course, councils are not just run by locally elected politicians. They have fantastic officers who support the work of the council and local communities. [Interruption.] While the Labour party seems to think it is funny that I want to thank people who work in local authorities for their work, Conservative Members think that it is important to do so.

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the Minister give way?

Jake Berry: I will not; I am concluding.
Let me finish by thanking our councillors and our officers, as well as the Opposition for calling this important debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss the Government’s exciting agenda.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I am not putting a time limit on speeches right at the beginning of the debate, but I advise Members to keep an eye on the clock and not to go beyond nine minutes. You do not have to do nine minutes, of course; you can do less. I call Mr Clive Betts.

Clive Betts: This is a very important debate because these services affect millions of our constituents up and down the country. The reality is that local government has had bigger cuts  to its funding than any other part of the public sector since 2010, with a 50% cut in Government grant and, even by the Government’s figures, a 25% cut in spending power. No other part of the public sector has had that level of cuts. We know that the biggest cuts have fallen in the poorest areas in the north of the country. It will be interesting to see how the Government respond to the pressures on services in areas such as South Yorkshire and the north-east following the general election; perhaps they have a bigger interest in defending those areas in the future.
Clearly there are massive pressures on social care. We know from the LGiU survey, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, that the biggest pressures now identified by councils are on children’s services, followed by services for the elderly. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chair, published a number of reports in the last Parliament. We know that the funding gap could be up to £10 billion if it is not addressed by the end of this Parliament.
We also know the impact of the attempt to prioritise social services. Council spending on social services has risen from 45% of total spending to 60% between 2000 and 2020, which has squeezed out spending for all other important services. Spending on road safety, libraries, leisure, buses, housing and environmental services—things that are really important to the vast majority of our constituents—has been cut by 50% or more. As I have said before, there is a challenge to democratic accountability at a local level when, despite what the Minister said, people see their council tax rising every year, yet the services that most families who do not get social care use are being cut as they pay more for them. That is a fundamental challenge, and it has to be addressed; I will come on to how we might do that in a minute.
I turn to the other problems, one of which is council tax. Council tax has not been revalued for 20 years. Its bands are fixed in concrete, and it is becoming increasingly regressive and out of touch. The Select Committee made recommendations in 2019 on how to address that, and I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to accept them. Business rates are, again, determined by central Government, with no say at a local level. Last night, the Government changed the basis for calculating business rates increases from the retail price index to the consumer prices index. Do the Government really think that, in the longer term, business rates growing at 2% as the major funding source for local government can deal with the rising pressures on social care? It simply does not add up, and that message has come not from other Members of this House but from local councils—from the LGA and the County Councils Network. Paul Carter, when he was leader of Kent County Council, made this point powerfully to the Select Committee. We cannot continue to fund social care simply from a business rates increase based on CPI. It just does not add up, and the Government have to address that at some point.
More money has been put in this year, which has been generally welcomed. Sheffield City Council told me that, for the first time in many years, it is not having to make in-year cuts because of the extra money that has come in. It had about £10 million extra for social  services, which has taken the immediate pressures off. But looking ahead, the council does not have certainty. It was worried by the report that came out the other day indicating a possible £30 million cut as a result of the fair funding review. I know that there is disagreement, and it depends which analysis we read, but that fair funding review has to recognise the issue of deprivation right across the formulas, including the foundation element. In the end, this is about distributing money according to need and the ability to raise money at a local level, and that has to be reflected in all elements of the fair funding review.
Looking to the future, there seem to me to be some key issues that have to be addressed. First, local government needs the certainty of a three or four-year funding settlement. That was welcomed in the last Parliament, and we need it again. As I have said, we need a fair funding review that is genuinely fair. However, we cannot have fair funding for local government unless the totality of the funding is sufficient for all councils, and that is the reality. All the reports we did on the Select Committee have shown this gap of up to £10 billion, particularly on care services, by the end of the Parliament. This is about making sure that local government as a whole gets a fair deal, not just every individual council.
If we are to sort that out, we have to say, as the joint report of the two Select Committees—the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee—did in the last Parliament, that we need a specific agreement and settlement for social care. We cannot continue to fund social care out of business rates and the council tax. It simply is not going to work.
We recommended a social care premium, and I still stand by that. We went for a citizens’ assembly and set one up—the first time for a Select Committee—and we were told, “We don’t mind paying more, but we want to know that that money goes into social care”. Let us make it clear: we did not recommend a private insurance scheme, where people only get out what they pay in. We recommended something very similar to the German system, where people pay a premium—it could simply be an increase on the national insurance premium, or it could be a completely separate premium that goes to something like a friendly society, which administers the money on behalf of the Government—but, whatever happens, that money has to be separate, accountable and shown to go into social care. Social care would continue to be administered through local councils; this is not the centralisation of the social care system. There would be a move eventually—eventually, as money comes in—to having free personal social care. That was the cross-party recommendation, and I hope we can have cross-party discussions on that basis. I am certainly willing to enter into them, and I am sure that people across the House would do so if we look at this on that basis.
I would say to the Government that we ought to be able to improve local taxation. They should have another look at the whole issue of council tax bands. I know revaluation is a really difficult issue, but they should have a look at some reforms. Business rates retention is desperately complicated. It is so complicated that I think the Government have to separate out the mechanism for the redistribution of money within local government, which is what they are now trying to do through business  rates retention, and the incentives to local councils to encourage local economic development. The two are separate, and the Government must do that.
In the end, there is a really big challenge when we come to devolution. I hope the Select Committee will go back to the inquiry on devolution that we started in the last Parliament. I am a passionate believer in more decisions being made at local level not just by councils, but by local communities. The real problem is that this should not just be about transferring powers down; it should be about transferring the ability to raise money and to make decisions at local level. The real difficulty—and it is not something that anyone has an easy solution for—is that that is very difficult to do in this country because of the great inequalities we have here. In Sweden, people have a much greater ability to raise money at local level, and they can do that because the country as a whole is much more equal. The differences in wealth and resources between different parts of Sweden are much less than they are between different parts of this country. That is the challenge: how to devolve powers, but also the ability to raise money in a country where inequality is so great that raising money at local level results in a big difference in the amount that can be raised from any individual tax. I know that is a challenge, and it is a challenge that I hope the Select Committee will now take up with a report on devolution. I hope the Government are prepared to listen and to be much more radical than they have so far indicated they are going to be.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), whose speech was characteristically thoughtful, and I think that, across the House, we all recognise his expertise in this matter. I can start by agreeing with him on the last part of his speech, which is in urging my right hon. Friend the Minister to be ambitious in our devolution agenda. The fair funding review is necessary and right, and I urge the Government to move forward with it. However, the Minister is right, in the wording of the Government amendment, to link this to our ambitious devolution agenda, which gives us an opportunity to break out of the straitjacket that has bedevilled local government funding for many years—throughout my time in the Department and my time as a councillor.
I am delighted to be making my speech with my new constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon), sitting just in front of me. He had a most distinguished career in local government—in the London boroughs and on the London Assembly. I think his expertise in this field will be very welcome to this House, and I am really pleased to see my friend here.
That comes back to the point: the pressures local government has had to contend with have been real, despite the fact that the sector is staffed by dedicated people at all levels, as the Minister acknowledged, and I very much welcome what he said about that. Historically, it has also been the most efficient part of the public sector, and we need to build on that strength. However, it has suffered, as the Select Committee Chairman pointed out, from the fact that it has, compared with  most other countries, a very narrow tax base or revenue base from which to fund itself. I therefore hope that we will be prepared to think outside the box to some degree when we look at devolution.
The devolution of function is really important and the devolution of legal power is important—as my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, that is something my good friend the noble Lord Pickles, I and others sought to do in the Localism Act 2011—but the third bit of the equation is the devolution of resource. If we are going to be serious about devolution, we have to talk in terms of fiscal devolution as well. I commend to the Minister and colleagues the work of the London Finance Commission. It has published two reports, the first of which was in 2013. The commission was established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London, and I know from personal experience that the Prime Minister himself is a convinced devolutionist.
I hope that we can look again at some of the sensible and practical recommendations for fiscal devolution in that first report. For example, there is the devolution of stamp duty land tax and perhaps of other property-based taxes. That also reflects another point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. Yes, there are more disparities of resource in the United Kingdom than in other countries, but at the same time there are disparities of costs as well. The cost of running a local authority service in London and the south-east is exceedingly high, and perhaps a measure of fiscal devolution to a regional level would enable greater nuance in the way we approach those matters. It is an important topic, and it seems to me that we need to think that through very carefully.
Among the other specifics I want to touch on is the need to look sensibly at the formula itself. When I was the Minister I think we had 270-odd bits of regression analysis in the formula, and I pay tribute to the officials who grapple with that. However, it is complex and opaque, and we need something that is much more transparent to those who are its recipients. For example, we could look at a couple of practical issues. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment to eliminating negative rate support grant. It seemed to me scandalous that a well-run and efficient local authority such as Bromley would, if we had not taken steps, have been penalised by negative RSG. I ask the Minister—I sure he will do this because he looks at all this carefully—to look at the London Borough of Bromley’s submission to the consultation, which set this out in some detail and with real expertise.
Another important area is that at the moment the formula is based almost entirely on a needs versus resource matrix, and there is nothing in the current arrangements that rewards efficiency. If we want to change behaviours in local government for the better, surely we can find some incentive that we can build into the funding mechanisms to reward local authorities that have a track record of being historically efficient and historically low-cost. Bromley is exactly such an authority, but it actually loses out in consequence. As it has been efficient, any reduction made on a simple pro rata basis bears more heavily on it, because there is less slack. We need to bear in mind that, in some cases, historically high spending may be the result of historically high funding, but not necessarily the consequence purely of  need or of the efficient use of resource. Therefore, we need a formula that is more nuanced in capturing those distinctions.
I hope we can look seriously at the operation of the area cost adjustment. In my experience, that has proved to be rather arbitrary in a number of areas. We have an artificial distinction in London between inner and outer London boroughs. As many Members of the House will know, that does not reflect the way London has changed. There are now areas of considerable affluence in inner London, but as they are counted as inner London boroughs, they get a more generous rate of funding than outer London boroughs, whereas many of the London suburbs are facing increasing social and economic challenges. Getting rid of that distinction would be good, and moving to a more up-to-date system of calculation would also be valuable. I often wonder whether we should be looking at assessing need on the basis of disposable income and costs once housing costs are taken out of it, because housing costs are a significant distortion across the country and perhaps some element can be put in the formula to look at how we deal with that. Again, that bears heavily on efficient outer-London authorities such as mine.
We could also look at the way that benefits data are handled in this calculation. Should we be looking at benefits data making allowance for the level of take-up, which will vary? Doing it on a flat basis can, again, potentially distort the reality on the ground. That is why taking deprivation levels after housing costs may give us a better and more realistic assessment of disposable income in local authority areas.
I shall make my final point, because I know that there is much more that we need to touch upon. We have always maintained that we would honour the new burdens doctrine, but I am not sure that that has always been possible to achieve in practice over the years. There are still about 1,100 statutory obligations on local authorities and those have grown, sometimes for good reasons of social policy—the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is one example—but they can, again, bear heavily on some areas, particularly in London, because for a raft of reasons over which local authorities have no control, London is inevitably a magnet for new arrivals, so there will be greater pressure on London boroughs in terms of the costs of housing policy. Something that is more nuanced, which I am sure is achievable given modern data collection, would be welcome and advantageous.
I very much welcome the move back to multi-year settlements, and I hope we can look at having four-year or so settlements going forward. It was necessary to do what we did this year—I think everybody understands that—but let us get back to multi-year settlements to give greater certainty for people.
If we give local authorities more powers, as we did under the Localism Act 2011, can we look at the rules governing the way in which they can approach raising revenue for investment in capital projects? There are a number of restrictions around that at the moment? It would also encourage them to use their powers—also provided under the Localism Act—to take on more commercial activities and to do so in a more commercial manner. The take-up of that has been somewhat patchy  thus far, so what can we do to encourage and assist local authorities to do more of that for the benefit of their communities?
So actually there is an ambitious agenda here, and this is an ambitious and important topic. I welcome the opportunity for us to have this debate. With respect to the Opposition, I should say that it is not simply about putting more money into a system, because, at the end of the day, the system is no longer capable of responding to the complex needs and pressures that modern local government must deal with. That is why the Government are right to have this review. They are right to be ambitious and to link it with the broader devolution agenda. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted what has been happening over the past 10 years, which is that local government as a sector has taken the biggest cuts. Added to that, Departments might have to find another 5%, and no matter what the Minister says in his reply about levelling up and making promises to northern councils, it will be very difficult, because this Government and the coalition Government had a clear policy to move funding from more deprived to more affluent areas.
Interestingly, the Minister said in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) that he was here because he wanted to make the point that he was the Northern Powerhouse Minister. With one sole exception, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) has been the only new Conservative northern MP who has sat through this debate. We had a brief interlude from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who stayed for about 10 minutes, and I did spot briefly the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). If this new army—supposedly—of new Conservative MPs want to argue for their region, they should be doing it in here and they are not setting a very good example. I will work with them to argue why the Government got it wrong on local government finances over the past 10 years.
It is not just me saying that: the National Audit Office and the Centre for Cities have clearly demonstrated that money has moved from northern councils—the more deprived areas—to the more leafy suburbs in the south-east. That has not been done by accident; it has been deliberate design and policy. If the Minister levels up the system and makes it fair, I will fully support that, but that would be very unpopular among some of his colleagues in the south-east.
We have a situation now, after the last 10 years, where County Durham has lost £224 million in grant. Core spending per dwelling in County Durham stands at £1,727, whereas the figure for Surrey is £2,004, so it is clear that deprived areas such as County Durham are getting less core spending, and that has been deliberately designed by this Government.
The cover for that is the so-called “fairer funding formula”. That is complete nonsense, because it is fundamentally flawed in two respects and it is a disguise to use the word “fairer”. It starts from the premise that the needs of every single area and council are the same, when that is clearly not the case; I will give examples later. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South  East highlighted, it also works on the basis that each council has the ability to raise local finance on an equal basis; I am sorry, but they don’t.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

Kevan Jones: I will give way in a minute.
They don’t, because, for example, in County Durham over 50% of our properties are in band A, so, no matter how much we put up the council tax, we will not—unlike more affluent areas, with larger numbers of Ds, Cs and even Gs in some cases—be able to bridge the gap that has resulted from the withdrawal of core funding.

Jake Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: I give way first to my hon. Friend, as I always call him—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imply that somehow shire counties are getting a better deal from central Government in terms of spending allocation than metropolitan areas, but that is absolutely the reverse of the truth. The reality is that the shire counties get less than half as much as the metropolitan areas allocated from central funds, and that is why our council tax is, in some areas, twice as much.

Kevan Jones: Yes, but I have to say that in the hon. Gentleman’s area, North Yorkshire, the ability to raise council taxes is a lot better than in County Durham and others. I am not talking about a metropolitan council; I am talking about County Durham. In Surrey—Woking—and other areas in the south, the core spending has not been reduced at all. So the hon. Gentleman should be shouting from the rooftops about the unfairness of the current formula.
The other issue—

Jake Berry: rose—

Kevan Jones: I will give way in a minute; I know the Minister gets very excited when I make speeches.
The other issue is the ability of local councils to raise finance through, for example, the distribution of business rates. To be fair to County Durham, it is trying some ambitious plans for economic development to get business rates up, but Durham’s ability to raise extra funding through business activity is not at all comparable with that of, for example, the City of Westminster.

Jake Berry: I just wonder if I could recommend to the right hon. Gentleman’s reading the Government’s December 2018 fairer funding review consultation, in which we specifically deal with the point he has raised about differing council tax bases. So it is not correct to say that this is not dealt with in the fairer funding review. The relevant paragraph is 3.2.2 on page 50 of the December 2018 consultation document.

Kevan Jones: The Minister says that, but then he actually has a situation such as the following one, based on the funding figures put out at the moment—I accept we have not had the final decision. Under the formula for public health funding—and I supported public health funding going back to local councils—County Durham was forecast to lose £19 million, or 35% of its budget, whereas Surrey will increase its budget by £14 million.  I am sorry, but that just cannot be right when comparing the two areas in terms of deprivation and health needs. The Minister may say what he likes, but in the past 10 years that has been the direction of travel. If he levels it up and changes it suddenly as Northern Powerhouse Minister, he will have my 100% support, but I doubt whether he will be able to do that. The promises that he and others have made to northern councils are going to be very limited.
On the point about need, there are two areas with which all local councils have been struggling—adult social care and looked-after children. Again, to work on the basis that need for all councils in those areas is the same is to start from the wrong premise. For example, since 2010 demand for children’s social care has increased by £7.2 billion but central Government support has halved. That has pushed demand on to local councils, which have had to make very difficult decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, these services are not optional—they must be provided, by law. If we look at the national figures, in 2010, 54 children per 10,000 of population were in social care. By 2019, that had risen to 65—an increase of 20%. If we look at the figures for the north-east, the figure is 101 children in care per 10,000 of population. In the south-east of England, the figure is 53, and in Surrey there are only 37 children in care per 10,000 of population.
The demand on councils such as County Durham and others in the north-east, and in other urban areas, is far greater than it is on Surrey. Demand for statutory services, which councils have to provide, is going up and they are very costly. At the same time, core funding from the Government is being taken away from some areas and redistributed to areas such as Surrey, which is not just flatlining but receiving an increase in funding. I am sorry, but that just cannot be fair.
I said at the start of my speech that the direction of travel has been pork barrel politics of the worst type, doling out money to people who vote Conservative in certain parts of the country. The problem for the Conservative party is that the pork barrel has got bigger. The big test will be whether the Government can actually spread that around the country and meet all the pledges they have made. I doubt whether they can, because this has not just happened in local government funding. On fire and police, the direction of travel has not just been cuts, but moving revenue collection to local taxpayers. For example, the Government announced an increase in the amount of money going into policing, but that has been moved on to local taxpayers. Councils like Durham County Council are less able, because of their council tax base, to raise that type of financing.
I do not like using the phrase “fairer funding formula review”, because I do not think it is that at all. I doubt whether the new system will be, either. A lot of promises have been made and we shall have to wait and see whether they will actually be met. I will work with anyone to ensure that County Durham gets a fair hearing. I am sad that my new Conservative colleagues are not here today to join me in demanding fairer funding for County Durham, but I will certainly press the case for County Durham to receive the fair funding deal it wants.
I will end with a point raised by the Minister. I came from local government. I was a councillor for 11 years. I respect, and am very grateful for, the work done by  councillors of all parties. They are remunerated at a very low level for the amount of work they do. However, I find it a bit difficult to take it from this Government, who have demonised certain people in local government over the past few years and used them as scapegoats for decisions that have been taken—[Interruption.] The Minister says codswallop, but I remember—as I am sure we will witness again in the next few weeks in the local government elections—the Government using the issue of pay and so on in local government to argue that local councils were being profligate. Those are diversionary tactics to remove attention from the core issue, which is that the Government have decimated local government over the past 10 years. We shall wait and see happens in the review, but I shall continue to make the case to ensure that the people of County Durham get the funding and services they require from what is a very good council, and to ensure that the Government have a formula funding that is not only fair but equal across the country, and recognises need.

Duncan Baker: The best piece of advice I was given on delivering my maiden speech was, “Don’t worry”—easier said than done, I guess—“treat it like a love letter”—I have not written one of those for a few years—“only that it is back to your constituents.” My wife told me—I should be careful about what I say because she is watching—that I did not have a romantic bone in my body, so that might be quite tricky. But it should be easier for me because this is to my home, to where I grew up and to the place that I love so much. It is a genuine love, and it is exactly why I stood to be the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk.
It has been said before in this Chamber quite a few times, but this time listen up: North Norfolk is the most beautiful constituency. [Laughter.] And I am going to prove it. Where else would we see some of the most iconic and beautiful parts of the country all in one area? From the miles of stunning coastline, taking in areas such as Holkham, Wells, Blakeney and down to the easterly end of Horsey, we have no fewer than six blue flag beaches. There is also the rural countryside, full of beautiful landscapes, quintessential villages and names like Baconsthorpe, Happisburgh and Sloley, which I will admit reflects somewhat the slightly easier pace of life we have in North Norfolk. We also have the glorious Norfolk Broads. It is idyllic, stunning and breathtaking in every inch of its 400 square miles.
It is, of course, no surprise that we see 9 million tourist visitors every single year, bringing in £500 million through the tourism sector. Indeed, in this House many Members have grabbed me in the Tea Room and said, “I remember holidaying in North Norfolk when I was a child.” Even more have grabbed me and said, “Can you recommend somewhere good to go in the recess?” Sooner or later, you will have gone on holiday to Sheringham or Cromer and tasted the world-famous delights of the Cromer crab. Its heritage takes some beating, too, for this is Nelson’s county.
Then there is my home town of Holt for which, I will agree, I have something of a soft spot. It is famed for its Georgian beauty and its independent high street. It is very much where the journey started for me to become  an MP. I went into politics to help others: to help the people I grew up alongside and lived with. Over the past decade, I have cut my teeth in the cut and thrust of Holt Town Council and North Norfolk District Council, never once doing it with an eye to becoming a Member of Parliament, but getting involved because you genuinely care enough to help others and make a difference to your home. On that journey, I was at one stage the portfolio holder for revenue and benefits on North Norfolk District Council. I welcome the Government’s £2.9 billion funding, or 4.4% increase, to local authority spending, which is one of the highest in the past decade.
I believe that the passion to help others not only led to my election success, but very much cemented my predecessor, Sir Norman Lamb, in the seat for over 18 years. There can be very few Members of Parliament who command the level of respect that Sir Norman garnered. Indeed, whether in Parliament or on the door- step, he continues to be commended for his hard-working, considerate and kind nature. I thank you, Sir Norman, for your hard work over the years, and I know—putting all partisan colours aside—that we will work together, cross-party, on projects for the good of our constituents. Indeed, the best compliment that I got when I knocked on one door was, “Ah, you’re like a young Norman”— 25 years ago maybe—but I will take that, knowing the high regard that he is held in.
I could not fail to mention in my maiden speech the amazing people who put me here. I have worked with many incredible charities across the years, and friends and colleagues have worked so hard to get me elected—not least those who voted for me. I am truly humbled by a result that I never saw coming, which gave me the second biggest swing in the country. I pay tribute to all those people.
All of us know that a life of public service is a sacrifice. That really hit home in the middle of last year when my young daughter was heard saying in the playground at school that she did not like the Conservative party. [Laughter.] She is getting a bit embarrassed. When her friend said, “Why is that?”, she said, “That’s because if my daddy wins, they’ll take him away to London” —so thank you.
Now we need to set about making the constituency even better, not just for today but for tomorrow. We are the oldest constituency demographic in the country, and I will fight for the health services that we need, the right housing across our region and the infrastructure, and I will strive to protect our precious natural environment. But we can have none of that, in my view, without a strong economy of jobs and growth. That is what I want to mention because I believe that, in 2020, we will see just that: a better future for our country, with optimism, our new standing on the world stage and our ability to work in partnership with the European Union but not be governed by it.
Business is my background; I grew up in a family that ran independent businesses—not multinationals, but small and medium-sized businesses. They are the lifeblood of the economy. I know that it probably broke every health and safety law there is, but I started off life with a broom in my hand at 10 years old, sweeping up the shop floor. I think that is where I learned the essence of hard work. That was instilled in me by my stepfather, Michael Baker, who built a business up for 46 years to what it is today. He was my inspiration. He passed away before I became an MP last year.
Entrepreneurs like my stepfather are not alone. There are people like him up and down the country who drive small businesses forward, including those on the high street. Indeed, here in this country we have nearly 6 million private sector businesses. Three fifths of our employment comes from those types of businesses and they account for well over 95% of all businesses. To me, without business, entrepreneurs and risk-takers, we would have nothing, because we would not have the economy to pay for hospitals, schools and infrastructure, and nor would we have the jobs that give us the ability to buy a good home, settle down and live a fulfilled life. Our businesses and high streets—those that create jobs in this country—should be supported and revered, and I very much want to be a voice for them.
There is more to do but I am confident that in this Parliament, we will achieve it. Already, business rate cuts extend from one third to 50%, as the Government commit to levelling up and supporting high streets. With better broadband across our country, a mobile signal in every corner and investment in young people, we will nurture and grow our SME sector and produce the next wave of industry that will inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs and business leaders.
Across my constituency, I have the most incredible businesses across a raft of sectors, whether that is tourism, agriculture, manufacturing or retail. Talent abounds in every corner. I want to see more apprenticeships for young people. I want to see more opportunities for young families to excel together and promote the ability to work and live in my wonderful region. That is what I am going to do: support those entrepreneurs, those small and medium-sized businesses—those risk takers.
Finally, I thank my family for their unwavering support —my wife is watching—and my stepfather, who inspired me and unwittingly started me on this path to Westminster but died before I could be here. I stand here wearing your shoes—my feet are killing me. [Laughter.] I am wearing your watch, so you are with me today. I know that you will be looking down and I know that your proudest achievement came true: we got Brexit done.

Kate Osborne: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. It is a great honour to serve in this House. It is also the greatest honour of my life to be elected to represent the constituency of Jarrow, and I would like to thank the people of Jarrow for putting their faith in me. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen Hepburn, and thank him on behalf of the constituents of Jarrow for his 22 years of unwavering support for the place where he was born and raised. I wish him well for the future.
It is fitting to be called in this debate because as a councillor for the past 10 years, I have fought for local government funding and services, hit by unending cuts to local authority budgets. I am blessed to represent such a fantastic part of our country. The constituency of Jarrow is not just the town of Jarrow; it is also Hebburn, Boldon, Cleadon and parts of Gateshead. It is also the only constituency beginning with the letter J.
Jarrow, with its proud history, powered the industrial revolution, built as it was on coal, shipbuilding and metal works, but that was to change. Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company closed in the 1930s, Leslie’s yard at  Hebburn stopped shipbuilding in 1982 and the last pit in Jarrow closed in the 1980s. Successive Tory Governments, from Thatcher to Johnson, have decimated industry and come after our communities—not just in Jarrow but across the whole of the north. Many good, hard-working, decent people were discarded, and we are still living with those scars to this day. The closures and the misery they caused were and will always be a tragedy. They are a constant reminder of what Thatcherism brought to our region.
Sadly, like a lot of the country, particularly in the north-east, we now have food banks, high unemployment, poverty and struggle, but the people of Jarrow are resilient and proud of their history, community and working-class solidarity. They never give up, and I say to this House and them: neither will I.
There is no better example of this resilience than the MP for Jarrow from 1935 to 1947, Red Ellen Wilkinson. To be the first woman MP for Jarrow since Ellen fills me with pride, and it is only right and proper that I pay tribute to her here today. Ellen, outraged by injustice and the transgression of power at home or abroad, sought to do the right thing. She was and still is a legend. As a young trade unionist, she helped to organise the suffrage pilgrimage in 1913, where more than 50,000 women marched to a mass rally in Hyde Park. In 1935, as the MP for Jarrow, Ellen played a key role in organising the Jarrow march, an iconic protest against the unemployment and poverty in Tyneside. Like me, she would be outraged that today around 2,500 people are having to claim unemployment benefits in Jarrow.
Ellen, as an internationalist, condemned General Franco and supported the Spanish Republicans. She also, in no uncertain terms, denounced Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany. Here at home when she became Education Secretary, she had the monumental task of rebuilding Britain’s schools after six years of war. A pioneer, she raised the school leaving age from 14 to 15 and introduced the school milk Act of 1946, which gave free milk to schoolchildren. Her powerful speeches can be read in Hansard today. I would encourage all Members to have a read.
Sadly, Ellen died a year before the Labour Government’s greatest achievement, the national health service, and she would be disgusted by the systematic dismantling of this vital service. The crisis in our NHS means that staff are overstretched, GP waiting times are longer than ever, and mental health services are lacking. I would like to assure this House and the people of Jarrow that I will never stop fighting for our NHS. I will continue the fight to save South Tyneside Hospital and to make sure we have palliative care within the constituency after the closure of Saint Clare Hospice. I will fight against precarious work, zero-hours contracts and unemployment, and I will fight for skilled, unionised, well-paid jobs.
Like Ellen, I will fight for our children and young people to have the education they deserve. We need increased funding for our schools and investment in further education. I will not shirk one of the biggest battles still confronting us today, and that is against universal credit, a catastrophe that has had a cruel effect on our most vulnerable families. There are vulnerable children in need across the country—children without a stable environment to call their home—and it was in order to provide these children with a much-needed lifeline that I became a foster carer. I strongly believe communities should look after each other. In Jarrow,  we understand what being a community really means. We know all about solidarity, collectivism, trade unionism —all values that I hold dear.
I have been a trade union rep all my working life—I worked for Royal Mail for 25 years, on the frontline, as a Unite representative—but now I will shift my focus by holding this Tory Government to account. I will defend our public services, our NHS and our hard-won rights, and I will fight for equality and social justice—for a society in which nobody is left behind. To the people of Jarrow, I say: I won’t let you down.

Robbie Moore: It is a pleasure to make my maiden speech as the new Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley and to be making it in a week full of optimism, as we go forth as an independent nation.
It is an awesome feeling to be standing here speaking in this place, having started my role in politics in local government. I will never forget the moment when I walked in here for the first time, with goose bumps on my shoulder, and took my place on these Green Benches. But before I go any further, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, John Grogan, an incredibly decent and kind gentlemen. John served the constituency well for two years after being elected in the 2017 election, and I wish him the best in his new endeavours beyond politics.
It must be said that of all of my colleagues in this place I am honoured to be the one who represents the most incredible part of our country. Keighley and Ilkley has a little bit of everything, from the windswept heather and moor, farmed courageously and with passion by many farmers, to the urban landscape of Keighley, once the epicentre of the textile industry and now harbouring fantastic businesses at the forefront of manufacturing, engineering and technology. We are home to the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. We have the first public library in England funded by Andrew Carnegie. We are home to the mighty Keighley Cougars and to Timothy Taylor’s, which produces some of the finest ale this country has to offer. We have many talented and hard-working people from across the world in my constituency, from the many Italians and eastern Europeans, to the Indian population and the strong and proud Pakistani community. Striving for peace and respect for the rights of my constituents’ families in Kashmir will be one of my priorities in this place.
Towards the north of the constituency lies the beautiful spa town of Ilkley, with an array of independent shops, and even a Bettys tea room. Across the constituency, whether in Keighley, Ilkley, the Worth valley, Riddlesden, Silsden or Steeton, it is the people and their passion for and pride in the place that shines through. I think of people such as Ben Barns, a constituent in his early 20s in the process of setting up his first business, as a butcher in Keighley’s market hall, or Steve Kelly and his team at Keighley College, who are passionate about ensuring the young people in my constituency have the very best start in life—I was inspired by their “can do” attitude and willpower to raise aspiration on a recent visit—or the Ilkley Clean River campaign group, who through their own drive and determination have made  national headlines by applying pressure on Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency to ensure that our River Wharfe flows sewage free and has bathing water status. I could go on. It illustrates that it is incredible people who are the real catalyst for driving positive change. I am honoured to represent a constituency that has so many.
On the subject of this debate, local government is vital, but it must work and deliver for those on the ground by being truly representative of what people want. In Keighley and Ilkley, things are not quite working. For too long, Keighley has sat in the shadows of Bradford, with a feeling of being forgotten, undervalued and on the periphery of any real, tangible local investment offered by the Labour-run council administration, but things are about to change. Under this one nation Conservative Government, we will get on and get things done, and we are seeing that already, through our towns fund project. I will be bold and aspirational for my constituency. I am going to put Keighley back on the map as the No. 1 place to live, work and thrive. We need to revive and revitalise our town centre and get businesses booming again. We have a rich history, but our potential is so much more exciting. We have world-class manufacturing businesses based in Keighley, and now is the time to go forth and seize new trading opportunities, to become nationally—in fact, internationally—recognised as a centre of engineering excellence.
Some of our schools do need improving, and we need more special educational needs provision. Our much-loved Airedale Hospital needs a financial boost. However, all that is achievable under this Conservative Government.
I want to see Keighley as the beating heart of the northern powerhouse—the sparkplug that fires up that northern powerhouse engine. I want to see our farmers, who produce the very best food in the world, get the credit and recognition that they deserve. I want Ilkley to go even further, and to flourish as the ultimate white rose of Yorkshire. After all, it is the proud home of the official Yorkshire anthem. But in getting there, I will not be frightened of addressing some of those darker challenges that come before us. Drug crime in my constituency is a big problem which needs tackling, and the underlying issues surrounding grooming still remain and must be called out. I will not shy away from these responsibilities.
So I use this maiden speech not to talk about me, and my reasons and drivers for coming to this place. I use this key speech—my first speech in the House—to say a huge thank you to the people of Keighley and Ilkley for entrusting me with their faith to be their voice in this place. It is that trust which is lent at the ballot box, and which must now be earned. So as the only ginger male MP to enter the House through the new 2019 intake—[Laughter]—I look forward to using the inherited red fire to crack on, roll up my sleeves, graft hard to deliver real, tangible outcomes through this one nation Conservative agenda, and put Keighley and Ilkley back on the map.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. Let me first congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today and represented their constituencies so well, and wish them good luck for the future.
Once again, we have come to the Chamber because the Government are failing the people of the United Kingdom. Money is being kept from those who need it. While local authorities in Conservative areas are awash with money, Labour areas lag behind. The typically Labour metropolitan boroughs are set to lose, on average, £300 million under the Tories’ so-called fair funding formula, while—as my right hon. and dear Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out—leafy, well-off shire counties such as Surrey and Buckinghamshire will find the vast majority of that money funnelled into their already gilded pockets. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), agreed in 2016 that this iniquity should not continue unabated. The Conservatives have repeatedly cut the budgets of local authorities since 2010. Councils in London have been the hardest hit, having seen a decrease in core funding of more than 60%.

Preet Kaur Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge cuts of £142 million resulting from central Government settlement funding assessments for Birmingham between 2015 and 2020 are unsustainable, and that any consequent reductions in services should be firmly and resolutely laid at the door of the Conservative Government?

Virendra Sharma: I completely agree, and that is the story of every borough and every area in the country.
My own local authority, Ealing Council—where I served as a councillor for more than 25 years—now has only 34p for every pound that it could spend in 2010. Austerity and government cuts mean that less money goes to those who need it, particularly vulnerable children and adults who rely on social care services. Mental health and child safeguarding services have all been put at risk by the Government’s plans. Ealing is the third most populous and fastest-growing London borough, yet it has no maternity unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) raised the parlous state of GP surgery provision in our borough. With an ageing population and a homelessness crisis in London, demand for services is set to soar beyond sustainable levels.
Funding for youth clubs and youth workers has also been slashed. The link between cuts in youth spending and the knife crime epidemic has been made clear by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime. Youth clubs in the heart of my constituency that once welcomed young people are now shuttered. Young people need safe spaces and positive role models to prevent them from sliding into a cycle of criminality and poverty that will follow them throughout their lives. Far from saving money, local government spending cuts have driven the costs of policing and welfare ever higher and have proved to be a false economy, not just in terms of the social cost but as an added drain on the public purse. They have made our streets less safe and have put our young people at risk, and it is incumbent on the Government to do more to make our streets safer. However, it is not just our young people whom this Tory Government are hurting; it is also the elderly and vulnerable, who rely on strong social care and public services to live independent, dignified, full lives.
Throughout his time as London Mayor, the Prime Minister supported a Government who oversaw swingeing cuts in the London boroughs that he was supposed to  stand up for. More recently, when he first took office as Prime Minister, he promised that he would fix the social care crisis once and for all. That undoubtedly lofty aim cannot be reconciled with the reality of this paltry local government finance settlement. London is home to some of the most deprived areas in the country, and Tory cuts have only made it worse as successive Conservative politicians have pursued frivolities such as the Garden Bridge.
Local government is the only part of government that most people experience. It means their everyday life: bin collections, potholes, schools, and green spaces. After a decade of neglect and years of undue pressure to make savings, this Tory Government have pushed local government to the brink. The funding settlement favours Tory shires, and takes from the most in need. Our society needs investment to get rid of the inequalities that are so rife in this country. The Government must act, and offer more money for our public services, more money for our young people, more money for social care, and more hope for those who are still faltering under a decade of austerity. That is why I will vote for the motion tonight.

Gareth Bacon: I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) on their excellent contributions to the debate. I must say that I envy them the huge relief that I am sure they must now be feeling. I look forward to feeling it myself in a few minutes’ time.
I rise to speak as the seventh Member of Parliament to be elected to represent Orpington since the constituency was created in 1945. I follow some distinguished predecessors, who are noteworthy for a variety of reasons. Time does not permit me to talk about all of them, but I will touch on a couple. The first is William Sumner, who represented the seat between 1955 and 1962. The reason that I mention William is that he did something very rare indeed. In order to secure the Conservative nomination, he defeated a young lady called Margaret Thatcher. That defeat led her to resign from the candidates’ list and to temporarily abandon her political ambitions. Fortunately, however, history shows that she recovered reasonably well from the setback. Baroness Thatcher, as she later became, and the values that she championed are what drew me into public life. She made Britain great again, and we on these Benches are the inheritors of her world-shaping legacy.
I directly follow in some famous footsteps, because my immediate predecessor was Jo Johnson, a man with impeccable family connections. However, he is significantly more than merely the sibling of his famous older brother. He is known for his great intellect, his glittering academic achievements and his distinguished career in journalism. He rose to high office in Government and continues to be highly regarded for having been extremely diligent and hard-working for his constituents. This was shown most clearly by the fact that he quadrupled the majority of slightly under 5,000 that he inherited when he was selected to almost 20,000 at the last election he contested, in 2017. I truly have a tough act to follow.
The Orpington constituency was included in the boundaries of the newly formed London Borough of Bromley as part of the London Government Act 1963.  While officially part of Greater London, it is in reality a collection of idyllic villages in the county of Kent. Country lanes, country pubs, village churches and farmers’ fields are spread across great swaths of the area. That is what makes it the best place in the country—contrary to what I heard earlier—to be a Member of Parliament. It is the largest geographical constituency in Greater London, and two thirds of it are rural. The Darwin ward alone is larger than the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Given the rural nature of large parts of the constituency, much of Orpington has not received adequate broadband investment over the years, so the Government’s pledge to roll out full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025 is especially welcome. I will be pushing for this to be expedited locally as swiftly as possible. Similarly, the rural nature of Orpington means that I have a keen understanding of the huge benefits that open green spaces bring, and any attempt to dilute or remove planning protections for outer London’s green belt would have significantly adverse consequences for my constituents. I will therefore lobby for such attempts to be resisted. The main town centre has a vibrant high street, ably supported by the Orpington 1st business improvement district, and I will always stand up for my local businesses.
Orpington has had its fair share of famous residents. The aforementioned Darwin ward is named after its most famous resident. Charles Darwin lived in the village of Downe, where he wrote his groundbreaking work, “On the Origin of Species”. Challenging orthodox thinking is not restricted to historical figures, however, as the constituency is home to contemporary figures who have made an impact on public consciousness. By a quirk of fate, that same village has been home to one of my new constituents—a certain Nigel Farage, who, although never a Member of this place, has had an undeniable impact on British and European politics.
We are fortunate to have some of the best schools in the country, and I am looking forward to visiting those that have kindly invited me to do so. St. Olave’s Grammar School can trace its roots back to 1571 and its long list of notable alumni includes my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). Its counterpart, Newstead Wood School for girls, has as its most famous alumna the reigning women’s 200-metre world champion, Dina Asher-Smith, who grew up locally and of whom we are extremely proud.
Orpington has also played its part on the national and international stage, including in the hour of this country’s greatest peril. Biggin Hill airport is now a general aviation airport that caters mostly for private aircraft, but during the second world war it was an RAF base and played a major role in the battle of Britain. Spitfires and Hurricanes from a variety of squadrons were based there, and its fighter pilots destroyed more than 1,400 enemy aircraft. Many of the nearby housing developments are named after those RAF personnel who gave their lives to defend their country. Reading of those pilots’ exploits, and in particular of the age at which so many of them made the ultimate sacrifice, is truly humbling.
I shall turn now to the business at hand: local government finance. With the fair funding review ongoing, this is an opportune moment to examine that subject, and I speak  as someone with 22 years of local government experience. The economic shambles left behind by the previous Labour Government in 2010 obliged the incoming coalition Government to make significant reductions in public spending. It is true to say that local government has had to share a considerable portion of that burden, but careful management of the country’s finances over the past decade means that this Conservative Government are now able to address the long-term structural problems that the Blair and Brown Governments created.
Critically, there is now an opportunity to review historical baseline funding and to recalibrate it, with particular consideration being given to factors such as current population levels and future growth projections. A number of qualitative actions can also be taken, such as conferring greater flexibility on local authorities to raise and spend their own resources, as well as improving business rate retention. Most importantly of all, we need to recognise and reward those local authorities that have delivered high-quality public services while continuing to make efficiencies, such as my own excellent London Borough of Bromley.
The scale of the Conservative victory in Orpington on 12 December, with more than 63% of the vote, was a ringing endorsement of our campaign to “get Brexit done” so that we could move on to the people’s other priorities. In sending me here to represent them in this place, the people of Orpington have done me the greatest honour of my life. It is a great privilege to be here and I pledge to serve them, and my country, to the best of my ability in the years to come.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am not going to impose a time limit, and if everybody behaves, we will get everyone in with a decent time for their speeches before the wind-ups begin.

Tim Farron: I will characteristically endeavour to behave, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a massive honour to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon). I hope that he is now feeling the relief that he was looking forward to earlier. The combination of Orpington and nerves rings a bell with me. I spent the night in Orpington before Blackburn Rovers won the league in 1995, and I could not sleep. I got the train back home, and the rest is history. I am also, by the way, the sixth-great-nephew, by marriage and adoption, of Charles Darwin, so it is a delight to know that I had a famous relative in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It was also a delight and an honour to listen to the maiden speeches of the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), and to engage in some ginger solidarity with the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I wish them all the very best for their time in this place.
Turning to the matter in hand, local authority funding cuts are the easiest for any Government of any colour to make. They make the savings, then someone else gets the blame. It is a transparent tactic, but I am not sure that it is as politically risk-free as Governments tend to think it is. It has certainly caused serious harm to families and communities right across the country. In my time serving in this place since my maiden speech—which I think was recorded on Betamax—our county  council, our district council and our two national parks, the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, have suffered significant cuts. It is worth bearing it in mind that national parks unofficially form part of the local government family, although they have no council tax-raising powers. The Lake District is the national park with the biggest population of any in the country, and it acts as a local authority in relation to some housing, planning and environmental matters for anyone who lives there. With that lack of ability to raise money of its own, those cuts are felt more keenly, to the extent that the Lake District national park is even talking about selling off iconic pieces of land.
Cuts are not without consequence. Our police service also has to live with the cuts that have effectively been imposed upon it. Our police and crime commissioner has been forced to raise additional council tax just to prevent the Conservatives’ cuts from getting any worse over recent years. Our police are left increasingly vulnerable, with a mere handful of officers—sometimes as few as six at any given time—left to protect my constituency, which covers an area the size of Greater London.
Owing to the Conservatives taking money away from our councils, most head teachers in South Lakeland have had to lay off staff, reduce teachers’ hours or merge classes. The Conservatives take advantage of the fact that heads want to be professional, disguise their financial hardship and protect children and parents, so those cuts are often safely hidden, but they hurt. They hurt children with special needs the most, but that is apparently okay so long as the Government can find a way to escape the blame and pass it on to local government.
Like the constituencies of all today’s maiden speakers, my constituency is stunningly beautiful, but it is also vast, and its communities are dispersed. Public transport is vital to keeping people connected, preventing isolation and loneliness, and ensuring that people can get to work, school or college or, indeed, go shopping. Government council cuts mean that Cumbria no longer has any subsidised bus services. We recently successfully fought to protect under-threat services in Arnside, Levens and Cartmel, but we should not have to fight tooth and nail to save every single route. We should have a settlement that underpins a vibrant, affordable and reliable bus service right across the south lakes and Cumbria.
The Government have even slashed funding in areas where they promised investment. Just over a year ago, having loudly proclaimed their commitment to preventive health care in the NHS long-term plan, the Government then cut public health budgets by £85 million within a matter of weeks. That means that Cumbria’s spending is now set to drop to just £36 per head. That is barely half the national average of £63 per head and ridiculously lower than the £241 per head per year that the City of London receives.
The impact of that has been tangible. With the loss of school nurses, children have been left vulnerable to slipping into bad mental, dental and physical health, and the Government’s cuts mean that Cumbria now spends only a pathetic 75p per child per year on preventive mental health. We know that proper investment in public health budgets would allow us to place a mental health worker in every school, which is key to young people being resilient and healthy and to ensuring that problems do not become so severe further down the line.  This is also the Government who promised a specialist one-to-one eating disorder service to the children and young people of south Cumbria, but they have still failed to deliver that service four years on.
The motion rightly mentions both adult and children’s social care. As we speak, a 96-year-old constituent of mine has been stuck in a care home for more than 10 months because the council has been unable to put a care package together. At his advancing age, he is being denied the ability to live out his time in familiar surroundings with the ones he loves. Social care is now threadbare. A lady who had life-changing injuries, rendering her severely disabled, has sought my help on many occasions when carers have not turned up, leaving her completely unable to access food or water. It is, of course, always the most vulnerable who are hit first and hit hardest by the loss of services. The omission of deprivation from the Government’s calculation of funding seems to be a case of the Conservatives looking at the injuries that they have caused and then choosing to throw insult on top of them.
According to the usual metric, my constituency is not the most deprived. We have unemployment at less than 1%, although 2,300 children are living in poverty, which is a reminder of the growing number of people in work and in poverty, and other parts of Cumbria, especially in the west, will be hugely hit by the Government’s choice to ignore deprivation. But the Government have made a choice, and it is to be cloth eared to the needs of rural northern communities such as mine. Local government funding is not some dry municipal concern; it is about the people who need care, the children in our schools, and the safety of our communities. That is why fairness matters. The Government must do a U-turn on their cuts to rural northern communities, because Cumbria deserves better than this.

Michael Tomlinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), whom I always listen to with care, and the several maiden speeches from both sides of the House, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Orpington (Mr Bacon) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). It is great to hear such strong voices on the Government Benches, and I look forward to further contributions.
Local government in Dorset has changed significantly over the past year, with nine councils merging into two in the run-up to the elections. My constituency is one of only two that covers both new unitary authorities. Of course, there were many reasons for the changes, but one of the main drivers was financial. Back-office savings, the rationalisation of office space, and a reduction in the number of senior staff have been painful but necessary decisions to ensure that frontline services can continue to be maintained.
Despite the changes, both Dorset Council and BCP Council remain in a challenging financial position. Additional funding is welcome, of course—I always say that—and it has added to both councils’ spending power. However, that is often offset by greater demands, not least in relation to adult social care and children’s services. Dorset has many advantages. It is a great place to live and work, but is also a great place to retire to,  with an above average 17% of the population over the age of 70. That proportion is growing, so we are facing adult social care challenges. Social care is by far the largest part of the budget, placing considerable strain on our local councils.
I therefore welcome the Government’s promise to produce a social care Green Paper. A long-term solution is absolutely required, and I particularly welcome the recognition in the Prime Minister’s amendment this afternoon of
“the pressures on adult and children’s social care”
and the move to a fairer funding formula. Much has been said by Opposition Members about the fairer funding formula, but it will be absolutely crucial for residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole. We need a fairer settlement that reflects the challenges of living in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made an intervention at the outset of the debate noting that deprivation was not only found in inner-city areas, because it is found in all our constituencies and in rural areas.
However, despite what we have heard from Opposition Members, the majority of the increases in council funding this year have been seen in urban areas. Once again, shire counties have received comparatively less. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), refused to take my intervention earlier, so I will tell him now—I am pleased to see him still in his place—that rural and shire counties receive an average of £240 per person. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was making in several interventions, but he is better than I am at intervening. Rural and shire counties receive £240 per person compared with £419 for metro- politan and city authorities and £601 for inner-London authorities. That is why it is crucial that the Government grapple with this issue in their fair funding review, as I know that they are doing.

Preet Kaur Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that councils of all political persuasions are already, as he said, in severe financial trouble following 10 years of savage cuts by the Conservative Government? The Government’s new adult social care funding formula, which will actually see Birmingham lose almost £50 million, will further exacerbate inequalities both within and between councils.

Michael Tomlinson: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I do not accept her point. My point is that we need to look more broadly. The funding given to rural areas is not enough, including in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I do not accept or recognise her figures. Indeed, I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), will dispute those figures, as the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth did in opening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that our local authorities needed greater security through a longer-term financial settlement. I understand what he says, and he makes a valid point about the need for a one-year settlement, but we need a longer settlement to give councils the greater financial  certainty that is required. That will mean they can move on and be more strategic in future, so I welcome what the Northern Powerhouse Minister said in opening.
I hope the Under-Secretary will echo and re-emphasise the importance of this funding and reassure my councils in Dorset and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole that he recognises the need for a longer-term financial settlement.
Councils in Dorset have taken the brave and commendable steps to reorganise and to ensure that frontline services are given the greatest priority. Ever-increasing council tax is not a long-term solution, as I know Ministers recognise. I welcome the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I will support it in the Lobby this afternoon.

Rachel Hopkins: I am pleased that we are having this Opposition day debate on a topic that directly impacts on all our constituents’ day-to-day lives. The aim of any Government should be to ensure that people’s day-to-day lives are improved and to give people a greater stake in society. To achieve that, we must empower the collective voice of our communities—our local councils.
Instead of listening to and supporting our councils, the past 10 years of Tory austerity have seen their resources cut, with no account taken of deprivation and demand-led need. Many services have been pushed to breaking point. It has created an impossible task for local councils so, rather than looking to improve lives, as councils want to do, they are now desperately trying to sustain the safety of local people.
We have a brilliant Labour-led council in Luton that listens and responds to its local community, but it can only do so much when, year on year, central Government funding is cut, which has led to over £130 million-worth of cuts since 2010. Spending has needed to be redirected to address the increasing demand for adult social care and children’s services, on which much has already been said, and to address the disgraceful rise in homelessness, which is particularly affecting Luton. Both issues require a national strategy, not just local sticking-plasters.
Since 2010, Luton has seen spending on libraries, museums and heritage services cut by 55%; spending on transport and local bus services cut by 55%; and spending on community safety cut by nearly 30%. This Government have completely dismantled our local councils’ ability to improve communities on the frontline. Now our councils’ simple aim is to best soften the blow of austerity.
These irresponsible cuts have directly led to the suffering of vulnerable people in my constituency. By cutting the revenue support grant and central funding, the Government are increasing the emphasis on regressive taxation such as council tax and business rates. In areas such as Luton, we cannot raise as much council tax due to the size of our houses—the majority are band A and band B properties. Even if we could raise council tax, we know that many people are struggling to pay it. We cannot raise much income through the new homes bonus because we are a very urban area and cannot build many more houses.
The Government profess to be increasing spending as part of their council funding review but, as has been repeatedly said, a simple increase in per-head funding  would not be based on need. In our area, such an increase represents a giveaway to the Tory leafy shires—I could go on—at the expense of more deprived post-industrial towns, which have disproportionately higher levels of deprivation. The situation is stark in my constituency, which differs from the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson).
The whole of Luton South deserves investment. Will the Minister explain to me and my constituents why the Caddington area of my constituency, which falls under Central Bedfordshire Council—a more rural, Tory council—will receive an indicative 20% increase, whereas the Luton Borough Council area of my constituency, which covers many more areas of deprivation, will receive only a 1.5% increase? Taking those figures another way, can he explain why people living in Luton Borough Council’s Biscot ward, where child poverty is at 55%, do not deserve at least the same increase as those living in Caddington, where child poverty is at 15%? Are children in Biscot worth less than children in Caddington? I say not. In my constituency we are all equal. Funding needs to be allocated based on people’s needs, not on political giveaways.
Decisions made in Whitehall are completely detached from the streets of Luton. I ask the Minister, or any of the ministerial team, to come and visit Luton—it is a short hop on the train, so it is easy to do—to see the difference. Come and visit Biscot, Dallow, South or Farley and tell my constituents that they do not deserve increased investment in their services.
If the Government’s latest funding announcement actually represented a fair funding review, I guarantee that Luton would be receiving a much higher funding increase than 1.5%.

Florence Eshalomi: I congratulate all my colleagues who have made their maiden speech today, including the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon), who is no longer here, with whom I serve on the London Assembly.
As a former councillor and a current member of the London Assembly, I am delighted to speak on an issue that is so important to us all. Local government may not be the hottest topic on everyone’s lips, but the decisions made by our councillors on local regeneration, housing, bins and potholes are important—many councillors have been taking pictures with potholes for their council websites—and they matter to the people we all represent.
Our local councils play a crucial part in all our communities and make a massive impact on our day-to-day lives, but the reality is that local government has suffered over the last 10 years under this Conservative Government and the coalition Government before them. Councils up and down the country have been crippled by budget cuts, and in Lambeth we lost over half of our core funding from central Government between 2010 and 2018. Lambeth Council has been forced to make over £200 million of savings just to make the books balance.
At the same time, the pressure on our councils has shot up. Social care has become a massive issue across the country. In Lambeth, we have also seen the number of families in temporary accommodation almost double between 2012 and 2019, at a time when the cost of  housing and temporary accommodation has increased. Councils in England are spending 78% more on temporary accommodation than they did five years ago.
One of the biggest challenges we have seen in Lambeth has been the response to the Grenfell fire disaster. Lambeth has 122 medium-to-high-rise blocks and although the £600 million fund from the Government to remove dangerous cladding is welcome, that is just a small pot. The money must be spread across the entirety of the country and it will not be enough to cover the vital work to provide the fire safety improvements that residents deserve, nor will it reduce the horrific amount of time that it has taken some private block owners to remove hazardous cladding from their buildings. Councils and local authorities were not responsible for the regulatory failures that led to Grenfell, yet they are having to pick up the pieces, out of squeezed budgets, to make their areas safer. It is time for the Government to support our councils and provide the funding not just to remove dangerous cladding, but to provide other critical safety work needed in social blocks and to give powers and funding to councils to confiscate private blocks that fail to remove cladding and make their residents safe.
It is not just on the council level that the Government are failing administrations. Here in London, the Government are passing the buck to the Greater London Authority. Unfortunately, we have seen a stark rise in violent crime in the capital over the past few years. The Metropolitan police are taking the issue seriously, but they have been let down by this Government because their funding has also been cut. Thankfully we have a Mayor, in Sadiq Khan, who recognises the need for urgent funding. Just last week, he announced an increase to the City Hall precept in council tax, which will provide almost £15.7 million to fast-track the introduction of 600 new officers. I am sure all Londoners will welcome that change and I applaud our Mayor for taking that action, but why should a Labour Mayor be raising taxes to pay for a Conservative manifesto promise? If the Conservatives party wants authorities to deliver on its manifesto promises, perhaps it should give councils and authorities greater powers to raise funds through sensible borrowing for investment or through progressive taxation systems, instead of tying their legs and forcing the ideology of austerity on councils.
What links all these things is the fact that the Government continue to pass the buck on many of the issues that have a big impact on people’s day-to-day lives. It is councils that take the blame when council tax goes up but bin collections go down because our authorities have to fill the gaps left by the Government. In London, it is the Mayor who has taken the flack for increasing his council tax precept when the Government have cut the funding for the Met police since 2010. This is not bold governance; it is political opportunism, at the expense of hard-working councillors and local authorities. I urge the Government to take responsibility and give our local government bodies the funding they urgently deserve.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who made some interesting points, particularly on Grenfell and the cladding situation, which I have spoken about many times in this Chamber.  I agree with some of the points she made about that. It was also a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who made an excellent maiden speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr Bacon), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who are no longer in their places. I have definitely tasted some Cromer crab in my time and probably more than my fair share of Tim Taylor’s Landlord beer.
It is good to see that the Opposition acknowledge the need for a fairer system of spending distribution, and I concur with that. The Government started on this road to try to make the system fairer, as it is certainly not fair at the moment. It is not fair in the amount of money allocated to shires and to cities; there is a huge disparity there. We are talking about more than twice as much money—in some cases, almost three times as much—per capita in cities compared with counties. Let us look at overall spending power. North Yorkshire, if we add in both tiers of local government, has about £770 of spending ability per capita, whereas in London—in the top 10 authorities—the figure is about £1,000 to £1,100. That is despite the fact that their populations are younger and better-off than my local populations in North Yorkshire. It is simply an unfair system and it needs to be rectified.
Council tax in many shires, including in North Yorkshire, is almost twice as high as in many places around the country. The Opposition say, “That means you can raise more money more easily by increasing council tax.” That is, of course, true, but there is a failure to see the irony: the iniquity whereby, despite getting less money, we contribute much more locally for our services ourselves, because lots of these cities are getting a far bigger slice of the pie from central Government moneys. That is where the iniquity lies.
I am glad the Opposition see that we need a fairer system, as I agree with that. We also need to make the system fairer progressively. I do not think it is right to rob Peter to pay Paul, but that is not what this consultation is about. It is about introducing extra money over a period of time, so all boats are lifted in a rising tide. That is exactly where we need to be. The system has to be progressive so that those who are not getting a good deal now are better treated than those who are getting a much larger slice of the pie today, and, as the consultation says, it happens over time—three to five years. I absolutely accept that it would not be right for some people’s share to go down, but that is not what the consultation is saying.
The key to all this is that the biggest area of discretionary spend by local authorities is in adult social care. That is the major problem that we need to solve. The Government are absolutely right to say that we need to do that on a cross-party basis, because that is the only way we will get a sustainable solution. Otherwise, the Opposition will say at the next election that they are campaigning to do it differently and the issue will become a political football again. We need to move away from that and agree on something cross-party. The Government have said that, and I absolutely accept that we need to bring forward a Green Paper so that we can look at the options.
However, it is not right when someone like the shadow Health Secretary says, “We’ll agree to cross-party talks as long as you agree to our preconditions before we  start; we want our solution to be the solution.” I have heard that from Opposition Members a number of times, although I do not think that this shadow Minister is of the same view, and I have been given that answer on the Floor of the House. It is simply wrong. We must have cross-party talks on the basis that everything is on the table, we sit down and discuss it, and we see where we can find common ground.
We do that, of course, in Select Committees. The most constructive thing that any of us do in this place as Back Benchers is to sit on a Select Committee where we discuss things cross-party. I have served on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for four and a half years. It has a fantastic Chair in the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). We have done dozens of inquiries over that time and have never had a single falling-out: all the reports are published with unanimous support. That means that we can get to a position where we can agree on some basic principles to take policies forward, which is what we have to do with social care.
Last year, the HCLG Committee held a joint inquiry with the Health Committee on future funding of social care. In our report we came up with a number of options, all of which we should discuss in the cross-party talks. One of them was to adopt a social insurance-style system similar to the one introduced in Germany in 1995. It is great to see Opposition Members nodding in agreement with that. Until that point, Germany also had a local authority-funded system, but that was seen as an inappropriate way to raise money to pay for social care because there was no correlation between the need for social care and the money that could be raised at a local level. They need to be totally separate. We held a long inquiry. In fact, the HCLG Committee visited Germany to look at its system, which is simple, scalable, and—critically—will stand the test of time.
We cannot solve the issue through general taxation. A report by the Office for Budget Responsibility said that if we carry on taxing things as we do today in terms of the need for things like social care, healthcare and pensions, our debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 80% to 280%. The taxpayer simply cannot pay for that out of general taxation; we have to find a different solution. For me, an insurance-based solution is the best thing. We developed a similar system for pensions with auto-enrolment, although that is not mandatory and this does need to be mandatory. So we do have a precedent in the UK for something that is scalable and sustainable.
The 22 members of the Select Committee, cross-party, endorsed the German system. It is a very good, simple system. It is based on about 2.5% of earnings, some paid by the employer and some by the employees. The basic principle is that everybody gives something so that nobody has to give everything. In my business life, whenever we were faced with a big problem, we always looked for somewhere else that had solved it. This has been solved over in Germany. The biggest benefit of the system is that when someone needs care, they are independently assessed and choose either to take that care from a provider such as the local authority or to draw down the money and pay it to a relative, neighbour or loved one who can look after them. It is by far the best system. We need to develop this whole policy area cross-party, and I look forward to doing that with Opposition Members.

Lyn Brown: First, I congratulate hon. Members who have given maiden speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—I loved her stuff about Ellen Wilkinson, who has always been a massive heroine of mine. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr Bacon), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). I was reminded of my husband complaining to his business partner after I said that I had booked a weekend away in Keighley. He said, “What, we are going to Bradford?” Never mind.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and other hon. Friends, the Government’s rhetoric about levelling up is not really going to do much for the constituencies that they won in December. To be honest, I am worried about what it is going to do in my constituency too.
I would like to set the scene a little bit and introduce Government Members to Newham, which is one of areas worst damaged by austerity. If the proposed funding settlement is approved, Newham’s grant will go from £244 million in 2013 to £148 million in the coming year. In that period, our population has grown by 15%, so the cut is almost 50% per person over seven years. We have the second-highest child poverty rate in the country, made worse by cuts to children’s services. We have terrible problems with knife violence, made worse by a decade of cuts to youth services. We do have, thank goodness, strong communities, but they are struggling after a decade of across-the-board cuts.
Today I want to focus on just one point, because time is short. I talk regularly about the harm that homelessness in temporary accommodation does to our children. Going into temporary accommodation means losing a sense of security. It means losing a safe, warm home. It often means parents losing jobs, and losing the support network of family and friends, because people are moving away from their family, often miles and miles away, with no choice whatever. It means having to change schools constantly, or travel for hours to keep the one little thing that is solid and secure in a child’s life—a place at their secondary or primary school. More and more often, it means being moved halfway across the country.
We should be clear about why this is happening—it is because of low wages, extortionate private rents, and slashed housing support. That is not all the responsibility of the Secretary of State—I get that, and it is a shame that he is not here to hear it—but if council homes were available, like the one I had when I was growing up, none of those causes would lead to the extent of homelessness that we now see. In Newham, we have 27,000 families on the homelessness waiting list. They need and deserve a safe and affordable home, but they are denied that home because council houses were sold off and never ever replaced. Grants to replace those homes have now been cut. The rise in temporary accommodation has causes in Government decisions.
That has massive consequences for council finances. Our local authorities are spending over £1 billion a year on temporary accommodation, often at absurd prices for dire quality. The net temporary accommodation bill for Newham has reached £5.5 million a year. The scale of the crisis is absolutely massive. There are 7,725 children in temporary accommodation paid for by the London  Borough of Newham. Newham covers 36 sq km, but we have more children living with that form of hidden homelessness—poverty, and poverty of opportunity —than entire regions of England. Let me be clear: that means Yorkshire and the Humber, north-east England, south-west England and the east midlands combined. Greater need, and greater costs for the council, are located in 36 sq km than in 63,000 sq km.
I thought the Secretary of State might be present for this debate, so I looked at his local authority, Newark and Sherwood District Council. There is deprivation and unfairness in the Secretary of State’s patch—I have seen the deprivation map—but overall the number of children stuck in temporary accommodation in Newark is 16. That is 483 times lower than the figure in Newham, so how exactly is it fair to prioritise places such as Newark over places such as Newham? Newham and Newark are not the same—none of our places are the same—and different places do not have the same level of need. They do not have the same deprivation or the same projected population growth for the very near future as we have. They do not have the same living costs for council staff, the same numbers of old people or the same numbers of children needing care. As we know, those latter two services are the most expensive council services of all. Different places cannot raise an equal amount of revenue. In Newark, a 4% rise in council tax raises £14 million; in Newham, it gets us just £3 million.
This is not actually about fairness. All these fine words are cover for a massive transfer of resources from historically Labour areas—including the seats just won by Conservative Members—to the Tory shires. The Government’s plans will not help areas like mine, and they will not solve our problems or heal our divisions, either. To be honest, they are only going to deepen them.

David Simmonds: I am grateful, at this point in the debate, for my experience in local government, where a three-minute limit is standard when speaking in chambers. Mindful of the time, I wish to focus on a key point for Ministers to consider as we welcome the consultation.
The Local Government Finance Acts of 1988 and 1992 are the main underpinnings of what happens in this country when it comes to local government finance decisions. Local authorities’ duties are driven largely by the legislation passed in this House over the years, including the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Children Act 1989, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and many others. We can all recognise that over many years the funding level has not kept pace with the legal obligations imposed on local authorities by the duties agreed in this House. It is therefore welcome that the Government are beginning to think of a funding formula that is fair in that it addresses the fact that, in many parts of the country, funding now lags significantly behind the legal obligations that local authorities have to deal with.
My own constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is no exception in having significant numbers of elderly residents who are asset rich but cash poor, for whom the local authority has a legal duty to provide social care but who would not be recognised in any of the funding formulae we saw under the previous  Government, which prioritised poverty in general as opposed to local authorities’ specific duties arising out of their obligations.
When they take forward the consultation, I urge Ministers to consider the broader picture of local government finance, because the core grant—the revenue support grant, as was—is only a small part of that picture. We have heard Members mention council tax and business rates, but of course elements such as the housing revenue account are a significant factor in local authorities’ ability to deploy resources. Indeed, one challenge we have seen is that the benefit of the new homes bonus has in many areas accrued to district councils, while the costs of providing adult and children’s social care services has to be met by counties. That is one reason why the pressure has become so acute.
Across the picture, we see a situation in which local government resources are under significant pressure. More flexibility about how we deploy those resources and more recognition of the innovation and entrepreneurial approach that many local authorities have brought to the issue would be welcome, as would an approach that recognises that, given that resources are tight, we must prioritise the meeting of local government’s core legal obligations to our citizens, which is absolutely a fair approach to dealing with local government funding. I commend to the House the approach that the Government have taken.

Jim McMahon: It is a privilege to wind up this important debate. We all believe in the power of local public services, but you can’t do it on the cheap.
May I congratulate Government Members who have made their maiden speeches today? The hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Orpington (Mr Bacon) all displayed a real sense of place and community.
May I also thank my fellow Labour Members for their contributions? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is, of course, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which has done a great deal of work on local government finance and devolution in particular. He was very clear that unless we address the crippling pressure on adult social care and children’s services, there will be a £10 billion funding gap. He also commented on the real pressure on and costs for neighbourhood services, which we all see in our communities. Many of the services on which we rely have had to be removed so that adult social care and children’s services can be kept going.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out that the red wall Tories were all absent from this debate, even though the areas they represent—[Interruption.]

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) is waving, but he has not been here for most of the debate.

Jim McMahon: Better late than never. The hon. Gentleman has missed contributions highlighting the impact of austerity and cuts on many of the seats now  represented by Conservative MPs. It is little wonder that the actual formula—the data, analysis and impact—has not been shared with the House at all. Why is that? The answer is that the Government realised that they need to go back—[Interruption.] I am going to continue, so that the Minister has time to respond.
Council tax increases generate very different amounts of money, depending on the locality and its funding base. A 5% increase in Wokingham would generate £5.2 million, while the same percentage increase in Knowsley would generate just half that amount, even though both areas have a similar population base. That is no way to fund adult social care. There is a genuine postcode lottery whereby house price valuations that are nearly 30 years old determine whether somebody gets looked after in their old age. I just do not think that is a fair way to do it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on her fantastic maiden speech. What stood out in particular for me was the sense of the power of community. In spite of deindustrialisation and the real pressures faced through austerity, it is the power of people and place that binds and makes communities. The Government just need to be a bit more on their side in future, compared with the past 10 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) highlighted that £300 million has been taken from his local authority budget, and noted that the fair funding review is far from fair. It takes money from areas of high deprivation and directs it to more affluent areas, which is absolutely the opposite of fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted a £130 million cut and its impact on neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) highlighted the important role that councillors play in making sure that we have strong local leadership, but they need Government on their side. Far too often, when we ask the Government to step up and to do what is right, they are late in doing so, like some Members arriving in the Chamber. The example was given of the Government being far too late in responding to the cladding issues facing many tower blocks. I am afraid that that is just not good enough.
The truth is that the Government do not want to talk about finance. They know that they are not on strong ground on that issue. They certainly do not want to give any detail about the fair funding review, because it would highlight just how unfair the review really is. I am glad that the Ministers are sitting down, because this will surprise them: we are not going to accept the amendment tabled in the Prime Minister’s name. It does not mention finance; it talks about devolution. The Prime Minister wants to be able to pretend that his flavour of devolution is all about giving people power, but that is not what we have experienced.
Under this Government, many parts of this country have been denied devolution. There is no clear framework to enable local areas to know exactly what types of powers can be devolved to them. What we see with this Government is a flavour of devolution that goes from Ministers to Mayors, whereas Labour recognises that to give real power to communities, we need to start off in neighbourhoods and work up to the nation. Neighbourhoods and communities have not been central to the Government’s devolution agenda, and that has been the hallmark of all we have seen from this Government.  I am glad that Labour Mayors are using their powers to ensure that the worst excesses of this Government do not filter down as strongly through to their communities they serve.
We have talked about the town centre fund. Clearly, all of us want to see investment in our town centres. We recognise their importance at the heart of our communities, and the decline that many have seen while retail has struggled to catch up with the online world. But frankly, we will never make progress if the Government are not willing to recognise that the business rates system is actively harming our high streets and town centres. It is not good enough to give just the local independents a boost. Of course that is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Doing only that massively underestimates the importance of anchor stores to bring footfall into big town centres.

Kevin Hollinrake: I think the shadow Minister said that the business rates system is driving the change on the high street. I speak as somebody who has a number of properties in my business, and that is not what is driving this change. It is a change in consumer behaviour that is driving the change on the high street.

Jim McMahon: It is right to reflect that the high street will always evolve. It will never be what it was, and it will of course be different in the future. But that does not mean that we should just give up and accept that decline is inevitable. The types of spaces that are often talked about are bespoke spaces. It might be possible to reuse a single shop front, but how it is possible to reuse a whole shopping centre that was built to be a retail core?
The Government’s agenda of only supporting independent traders massively underestimates the impact of anchor stores such as Debenhams or Marks & Spencer, which bring footfall through a town centre. How can it be right that companies such as Amazon can have very clever accountants to hide their profits away from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—which cleaners in their factories would not be able to do, by the way? How can it be right that Manchester airport’s warehouse distribution centre pays half the business rates of Debenhams in Manchester city centre? Where is the fairness in that system? If the Government really want a future for town centres and high streets, they really have to address that issue.
The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), was right to thank local government, but I am afraid that it will be beyond ironic to many that these thanks came from the Minister who has lorded over austerity and who tries to ignore the fact that the last 10 years have been under a Tory Government, whether in coalition or not. I am afraid that it is not good enough for him to disown the last 10 years as if they had never happened.
Most councils have done a fantastic job to survive. It has been the hard work and leadership of local councillors that has meant that many areas have not just been about decline, but have been offered hope. Council officers have worked so hard to ensure that public services can be delivered. But while thanking them, maybe we should give consideration to the fact that there are more than 900,000 fewer council officers today than there were  in 2010; they have been sacked and sent out the door because councils do not have the money to pay them. That is the reality on the ground.
When we were told that austerity was over, I do not think that anybody really expected that we would go back to 2010, but nor do I think that anybody expected the cuts to go even deeper even faster, and that is exactly what will happen under the fair funding review. I challenge the Minister—if he is so confident that that his fair funding review is well thought through and genuinely fair, and that the evidence base is robust and can be tested, what is there to hide? Why not place the data in the Library by the end of the week, so that every Member of this Parliament can hold the Government to account?

Luke Hall: I want to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been a lively and, at times, fiery debate, but certainly a constructive one, and we had some genuinely important issues to discuss.
I would like to congratulate all Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) gave a passionate speech about the industrial heritage and history of her community and the inspiration that Ellen Wilkinson provided. I congratulate her on what she said about fighting for the principles she believes in and for health services, children’s services and workers’ rights. From her maiden speech, her constituents will be assured that she will be a passionate and doughty champion for them in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) talked about his 14,000 majority, which I am sure all of us are jealous of. He started his speech by explaining that it would be a love letter to North Norfolk, and it certainly was. He talked passionately about his work on both the town council and the district council. He mentioned that he was nicknamed “a young Norman” during the campaign; I am sure that that will follow him in the House. He talked passionately about his late stepfather, who built up a business and was an inspiration to him. I am sure that everyone who heard his speech agrees that his stepfather would be proud of him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) talked about the beautiful rural and urban landscapes in his constituency and the unanimous support in the House for the Timothy Taylor’s beer produced there. He talked about how local government must be representative. From his speech, we will all be reassured of the excellent representation he will provide in this House as a Member of Parliament, and I know that he will succeed in putting Keighley and Ilkley on the map.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon) talked passionately about his predecessors and the big shoes that he had to fill. He was right to pay tribute to Jo Johnson, a hard-working local MP, and to mention his belief that his constituency is the best place to live in the country, although I am sure that there will be 649 other opinions on that. He also talked about the importance of the fair funding review. I am sure that we will come on to talk about that, but I know that we will all benefit from his 22 years of local government experience, and we are grateful for his contribution this afternoon.
Local government has a unique and far-reaching role to play in our communities. It delivers services that we rely on day in, day out, and debates on the funding of the sector and the challenges and opportunities ahead for it are some of the most important that we have in the House. We will provide the funding for social care, education, transport, housing, health and local growth to flourish, and that is why core spending power for local government will increase from £46.2 billion to £49.1 billion in 2020-21—a 4.4% real-terms increase across the sector.
A number of Members talked about the pressures facing adult and children’s social care. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) gave an important speech about the pressure on social care in his constituency and the unique challenges faced by parts of the country with high levels of internal migration. The Chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), was right to talk about the importance of cross-party discussions on this matter getting under way and how the work that he and the Committee have done on ways to make progress could be an example for talks. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the pressure on social care, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted the importance of cross-party work and support.
It is absolutely true that councils face pressures on adult and children’s care services—that is something we are hearing from the sector and from councils across the country. This settlement, when it is put before the House, will address that. We have given almost £6 billion of dedicated funding across social care. That includes the extra £1 billion grant for adult and children’s social care, on top of the continuation of existing social care grants worth £2.5 billion.
It is not just about the grant funding that we have provided. Councils are paying for their services through locally raised revenue. That is why we have proposed a 2% adult social care precept, which will enable councils to raise a further £500 million for social care. That will help local authorities to meet rising demand and recognises the vital role that social care plays in supporting the most vulnerable adults and children in our society.
I will touch on the fair funding review in a minute, but it is worth saying that, as part of the initial consultation, we have developed a new formula for children and young people’s services that uses world-leading research and up-to-date data from a strong evidence base for assessing relative needs and then distributing the funding accordingly.
As part of the injection of £14 billion into primary and secondary schools over the next three years, a package of £700 million was provided for supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. One of the best ways to improve outcomes for children is to remove the need for them to enter the care sector in the first place. That is why we have committed to a further year of the troubled families programme in 2020-21. In addition to the resource injection in social care through the settlement, the NHS’s contribution to the better care fund—the purpose of which is to increase health and social care integration—will increase by  3.4% in real terms, in line with the additional investment in the national health service in 2020-21. However, we of course want to think about the long term, and that is why we are committed to fixing the crisis in social care once and for all to give people the dignity and security they deserve. We will seek to reach across the Floor and build cross-party consensus to ensure that we do have a long-term solution.
One of the other main themes of this debate has been the fair funding review. We heard from the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about his long experience in local government and the importance of simplifying the formula, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) about delivering the formula. I think we should be clear that the sector has asked us for a simpler, up-to-date, evidence-based funding formula, and that is what we are going to deliver.
The figures we have heard this afternoon are pure speculation. They use out-of-date cost adjusters and out-of-date population data, and they are pure speculation. It is worth saying that this should be a completely evidence-based review. It is being developed hand in hand with leading academics; it is not a simplistic exercise. I understand why hon. Members have raised it today, but this is not about north versus south, rural versus urban or Labour versus Conservative. It is about developing a needs-based formula that takes into account deprivation, rurality and other cost drivers; that is weighted appropriately and adjusted for the costs of delivering services in different areas; that is balanced with the resources available to different authorities to fund those services; and, of course, that is considered against any transitional arrangements the Government may wish to make. It is simply not possible to predict the overall outcome for individual authorities or groups of authorities based on one or couple of these formulas.
Ultimately, this review should be a collective endeavour with our colleagues in local government, and it is underpinned by real analytical rigour. Very soon, in the next few weeks—we hope to do so by the end of this month—we will share the emerging results with the sector, and we will go to full consultation in the spring. I will keep Opposition Front Benchers fully informed about the progress of that. It is hugely important that we deliver this cross-party to make sure that it works for all of the communities that we represent in this House.
A number of colleagues spoke about the importance of delivering for rural communities. Again, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole about the pressures on his areas. It is important to note that we will maintain the rural services delivery grant at its highest ever level of £81 million in the coming year. It will be distributed using the same methodology as last year, which distributes funding to the top quartile of local authorities on the super-sparsity indicator.
This will form part of the fair funding review, which will include factors such as rurality and sparsity, but also the other geographical factors that affect the cost of delivering services across the country, and it will take account of them in a robust manner. In the December 2018 consultation, we set out the initial proposed approach to the area cost adjustment, which will include the adjustment for additional service costs associated with  sparsity, isolation or market size. For example, if an authority has longer journey times from service points to households, they will have to pay their staff for more hours in order to deliver the equivalent level of service. That will be reflected in the review.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) raised the importance of tackling homelessness last week, and she did so again today with passion and vigour. I have met the Mayor of Newham to discuss funding, and I would be very happy to visit Newham with her and the Mayor to look at this issue and talk about it in greater depth.
A number of colleagues raised the importance of policing and the work we are doing to tackle this issue. This is a clear priority for this Government: 20,000 more police officers on the streets, with 6,000 in the coming year. It is also why we have launched the £25 million safer streets fund, which will support areas disproportionately affected by crimes such as burglary and theft to implement well-evidenced measures tackling security, street lighting and other issues that affect their communities.
This is a settlement that injects significant new resources into protecting the most vulnerable adults and children in our care. It maintains grant funding and increases core funding in line with inflation, and it does all of this while protecting council tax payers from excessive increases that they neither want nor often can afford.
It is clear that everybody across this House wants to see local government not just properly funded, but able to adapt, innovate and improve the services it provides for residents for generations to come. Through the reforms that we have outlined this afternoon, that is exactly what we will deliver: a 4.4% real-terms increase across the sector; an extra £1 billion for social care; over £900 million for new homes bonus allocations; and the highest ever rural services delivery grant, at £81 million.
I look forward to further discussing these issues when we meet in this place next week to debate the most comprehensive and generous settlement for a decade.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 329.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement, which will deliver the biggest year-on-year real terms increase in councils’ spending power for a decade; recognises the pressures on adult and children’s social care as well as critical local government services, and welcomes the additional £1.5 billion available for social care in 2020-21; notes that the Government has listened to calls for a simpler, up-to-date, evidence-based funding formula and has committed to consult on all aspects of the formula review in spring 2020; further welcomes the Government’s ambition to empower communities and level up local powers through a future Devolution White Paper; and welcomes the Government’s progress on this agenda already with the £3.6bn Towns Fund and eight Devolution Deals now agreed.

Lilian Greenwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At oral questions earlier today, the Prime Minister assured me that the Government had responded to the tragic case of Errol Graham by creating a new independent serious case panel. Last week, the Department for Work and Pensions admitted that, far from being independent, the serious case panel was composed entirely of DWP officials. I understand that this afternoon the Department has indicated that the panel will now include some members independent of the Department. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you received any notice from DWP Ministers that they intend to make a statement on these new arrangements?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. Obviously, the content of Ministers’ replies is a matter for them, not the Chair, but I am sure that if there was any inaccuracy in anything the Prime Minister said, he will want to make a correction at the earliest opportunity. I am also confident that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her concerns—I am looking at the Whip—and will ensure that her comments about what was said at Prime Minister’s Question Time are fed back so that if anything needs to be corrected, it can be done quickly.

Transport

Rosie Winterton: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Andy McDonald: I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges that the UK’s transport emissions have not substantially fallen since 1990 and have increased since 2010; and calls on the Government to develop and implement a plan to eliminate the substantial majority of transport emissions by 2030, to decarbonise the UK’s entire bus network, to invest in an electric vehicle charging network that can support the majority of vehicles on the UK’s roads by 2030, to cut bus and rail fares, to increase public transport patronage, to provide funding for cycling and walking, including investment in cycleways and grants for ebikes, to introduce a network of clean air zones to tackle illegal levels of air pollution, and to bring aviation emissions within the UK’s climate targets.
The fires blazing in Australia are a catastrophe for that nation and its people, but it is not the only country at risk from such ravages. The burning infernos are a reminder of the new landscape that the climate crisis is creating across the world. The challenge is no longer abstract but a very real and devastating reality. I am proud, therefore, of the Labour party’s pledge to put tackling the climate crisis at the heart of our transport and wider economic policy. It is both right and necessary, not least because since 2010 the transport policies of Tory Governments have done so much to undermine sustainable transport.
The Government have failed to provide leadership on climate change. Those are not my words, but those of the former Conservative rail and environment Minister Claire O’Neill. She also said that the Government were “miles off track” in the setting of a positive agenda for the COP26 United Nations summit in Glasgow, and that “promises” of action were
“not close to being met.”
The Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to make the UK a world leader in the tackling of climate change is beyond risible. This is not year zero. The Tories have been in power for a decade, and some of us have not forgotten the last 10 years of broken promises and empty pledges on transport. Here are a few.
The “Road to Zero” transport decarbonisation strategy had no money or political will behind it, so is barely worth the paper it was written on. There have been vast cuts in bus funding and services; huge cuts in rail electrification programmes; support for airport expansion; and major road expansion programmes. Those actions are a matter of fact and public record. They are not the actions of a Government who are serious about tackling the climate crisis; they are the actions of a Government without a relevant transport policy.

Stephen Doughty: Will my hon. Friend contrast that with the approach being taken by the Welsh Labour Government? In my constituency, for example, they are supporting the building of a new station east of Cardiff, St Mellons Parkway, with funds working to ensure that more people can have access to public transport—green public transport —in the east of the city.

Andy McDonald: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Welsh Government are taking a serious issue more seriously, and they are to be commended for their work.
What is more, transport is the most emitting sector of the UK economy. It is responsible for more than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, and that is excluding international shipping and aviation. It is also the worst-performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, which are higher now than in 2010. Progress has been poor in comparison with that of other sectors: transport emissions were just 2% lower in 2016-17 than 1990-1991, compared with 60% for energy supply and 30% for businesses more generally.

Damian Hinds: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what happened to transport emissions under the Labour Government in the 10 years following 1997, before the financial crash?

Andy McDonald: We are dealing with 2020 and the risible record of this Government. I know that a number of Conservative Members think that the world started in 2020, but the Government have been in power since 2010, and they should take that on board.
The facts that I have given compound the Government’s depressing lack of ambition. Their failure to reduce transport carbon emissions and act on the crisis is a huge missed opportunity to lead the world in developing and manufacturing low-carbon technologies. Yesterday’s announcement of a 2035 phase-out of the production of petrol and diesel cars highlights the poverty of vision for the climate and for industry. Electric vehicles will be as cheap as diesel and petrol cars by the mid-2020s. It makes no sense to go on selling polluting vehicles that will be more expensive to buy and run into the 2030s. In its alternative strategy, Labour has set out a clear pathway to achieving significant reductions in climate emissions at the same time as reducing regional and social inequalities and improving the quality of life.

Marsha de Cordova: Does my hon. Friend agree that under Labour’s plans we would decarbonise our transport, but would also ensure that there was an exclusive network so that disabled people could have a good quality of life and could have access to our public transport network?

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Access to public transport should be treated as a right, so that disabled people can travel spontaneously as other people can. Many of our policies say exactly that,.

John Redwood: rose—

Andy McDonald: I will give way one more time, but then I really must crack on.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he accept that the UK has done more than practically any other country in the world to cut its carbon dioxide emissions since 1990, whereas China, for example, is greatly expanding its coal extraction and coal power? What is the Labour party’s message to China in the run-up to the conference?

Andy McDonald: My message is that our country is about to miss its own targets for the fourth and fifth carbon targets, and that is an appalling record. That is on the Government’s own statistics, so we really need to focus on getting our own house in order.
Successful bus networks are key to achieving a modal shift from private to public transport and reducing carbon emissions. A fully loaded double decker bus could take up to 75 cars off the road. We are hearing references now to buses from the Conservative Benches, inspired no doubt by the Prime Minister’s painting of cardboard buses, but there needs to be more than that. Under this Government, bus funding has been slashed in real terms by £645 million a year, and more than 3,000 routes have been cut or withdrawn. Fares have soared at more than two and a half times the rate of wage increases, while bus patronage in England outside London has fallen by 10%.
Labour has committed to extending the power to franchise bus services to all local authorities in England and to overturning the ban on new municipal companies. That would allow for the cross-subsidisation of services, smart and integrated ticketing, and London-style price caps. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) remarked the other day that a £1.50 bus fare takes her four stops on the West Road in Newcastle. I endure the same thing: a £2 bus ride from my home in Middlesbrough to the bus station a short distance away is truly ridiculous when people can cross this wonderful capital city very economically indeed.

Rupa Huq: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andy McDonald: I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.

Rupa Huq: I want to give my hon. Friend a London example. We have the 70 and 94 buses in Acton and Chiswick, and on Friday they became electric, despite the massive cuts to the Transport for London support grant that this Government have placed on our London Mayor. Many people in London are worried that our capital will be punished for voting Labour. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more joined-up thinking and more funding if we are to decarbonise transport?

Andy McDonald: I agree entirely. It is remarkable that London is the only city of any comparison that is without a central Government grant. Some of the measures that we would be taking, were we in government, would have gone some way to addressing that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be taking any more interventions. I am very much aware that a great number of people want to speak in the debate, so if colleagues will bear with me, I will carry on.
We said that we would totally reverse the cuts made to bus services since 2010, then invest the same amount again. That would allow for 3,000-plus route cuts to be reversed, and for the expansion of new services through the redirection of funds currently being channelled into road building. We could then provide free travel for the under-25s in the areas that own or regulate their buses, in order to address generational inequalities, encourage lifelong public transport use and help reverse the long-term downward trend in bus patronage in England outside  London. Electrifying 35,000 buses by 2030 would reduce their emissions by 72% as well as boosting manufacturing. However, progress has been painfully slow over the past decade, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State might furnish us with any proposals in that regard.
Similarly, we have seen rail fares rise by 40% since 2010. In contrast, fares in Germany were cut by 10% at the start of this year to encourage more people to travel by train in order to cut emissions. It is frankly absurd that UK rail fares have risen so excessively while the cost of short-haul flights remains low, with taxes broadly frozen. That is why we pledged in the election campaign to reduce fares by 33% by using part of the revenue brought in by vehicle excise duty. This financial offer to commuters would have encouraged the shift from car usage to public transport that will be essential in the coming years if we are to be successful in decarbonising the transport sector.
However, capital investment in our railways will also be required to reverse the electrification cancellations that we have seen under the Conservatives. Despite the clear environmental and performance benefits of rail electrification, the Tories cancelled the promised electrification on the midland main line, on the line between Windermere and Oxenholme, on TransPennine and on parts of the Great Western route.
Rail freight is a low carbon transport choice, emitting 76% less carbon than the equivalent road journey, and has massive potential to lower UK transport emissions, so I regret that the Government have done so little to encourage it. For example, the TransPennine upgrade has no new capacity for freight. Labour’s policy of bringing the railways into public ownership would allow a long-term strategic approach to investment, delivering a more consistent approach that would better support UK industry and help to decarbonise our railways.
I welcome Eurostar’s announcement this week that full direct rail services from London to Amsterdam will begin on 30 April, with direct services to Rotterdam beginning on 18 May. More rail links between the UK and Europe are vital to reducing carbon emissions from short-haul aviation, and I will work with EU colleagues to promote better rail connectivity.
Ahead of the Budget next month, I remind the Transport Secretary and the Chancellor that we cannot road build our way out of the climate crisis. New roads quickly fill up with cars, and “predict and provide” is a 20th-century concept. Ministers claimed that the road investment strategy for motorways and major A roads between 2015 to 2020 would revolutionise the network. In fact, one in three of the projects has been cancelled or delayed, and the strategy is in complete disarray. Road spending should focus on providing more capacity for sustainable transport, such as provisions for bus priority and integrated transport schemes. We need to develop a more holistic approach to transport funding that is geographically rebalanced across the UK.
Labour committed to repurposing vehicle excise duty to establish a sustainable transport fund. Such a fund could provide £550 million a year for walking and cycling routes, £1.4 billion a year to fund free bus travel for under-25s when bus services are re-regulated, £1.3 billion a year to restore the 3,000 bus services lost and deliver an additional 3,000 on top, and £500 million a year to fund local road improvements and maintenance. Most journeys start and end on local roads, which are also  used by cyclists and pedestrians, so fixing potholes and better maintaining those roads and pavements should be a priority.
Tackling road transport emissions requires an enormous investment in electric vehicles to see a just transition of the UK’s fleet of road vehicles.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Member give way?

Andy McDonald: I am aware that many people want to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will carry on.
Labour set 2030 as the date for ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. The Government’s new target of 2035 is not ambitious enough for our climate, our industries and our motorists. It is also deeply worrying to hear that the Government may be planning to scrap the £3,500 electric car grant when it expires next month. Perhaps the Transport Secretary can confirm whether that is the case when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
Electric vehicles are already cheaper over the lifetime of a vehicle, and up-front costs are likely to fall sharply by the mid-2020s. It makes sense for the supporting industry and for reducing emissions that motorists should transition soonest. Last year, Labour announced plans to invest £3.6 billion in a vast expansion of the UK’s electric vehicle charging network and to offer 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, saving buyers up to £5,000. Furthermore, our plans included the introduction of a targeted scrappage scheme to replace cars over 10 years old powered by fossil fuels with new electric cars. We would also have put 30,000 electric cars on UK streets through publicly owned community car sharing clubs. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed EV subsidies and have failed to invest any of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure fund announced in 2017. Not only is that preventing the UK from making necessary emission reductions, but it leaves our motor manufacturing industries lagging behind foreign counterparts.
In the midst of an air pollution crisis, active travel remains massively underfunded. The Government are predicted to miss their own cycling targets, achieving just a third of the 800 million extra trips that they hoped for by 2025, and much of the growth in cycling is limited to London. Labour set out plans to boost cycling and walking and to make England one of the most cycling and walking friendly places in the world, making our towns and cities cleaner and greener, and transforming the environment, travel opportunities and quality of life right across the country. The emissions-reducing plan would also have addressed the local air pollution crisis and the epidemic of ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles. This investment in walking and cycling would, for the first time, have made active travel a genuine option for the many, not just the brave.
The plan included: doubling cycling for adults and children; building 5,000 km of cycleways; creating safe cycling and walking routes to 10,000 primary schools; delivering universal affordable access to bicycles and grants for e-bike purchases; and providing training for all primary school children and their parents, extending training to secondary schools and making training available for all adults.
Aviation emissions are a particular issue: in the UK, they have more than doubled since 1990, while emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by around 40%. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow. According to the Department for Transport’s projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. The Government should rule out any expansion that is not compatible with our climate targets. Who are we expanding airports for?

Munira Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy McDonald: I have already indicated that I will not give way because so many people want to speak.
Fifteen per cent. of the UK’s population accounts for 70% of all flights, and half the country does not fly at all in any given year. Ahead of a possible tax cut for the aviation industry next month, Ministers should be thinking more imaginatively, such as replacing air passenger duty with a fair and just levy that targets frequent flyers. The Government’s advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, has called for the introduction of a frequent flyer levy. Such a move could reduce demand for flying without penalising the annual family holiday in the sun, instead making it more expensive to fly out for a weekend at the second home in Provence for the umpteenth time that year.

Damian Hinds: It is more about business.

Andy McDonald: No, it is not.
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is more than a decade since the effectiveness of regulators in the transport industry was seriously questioned or considered? [Interruption.] I know he is not listening, but he really should.
Regulators could and should have a positive role in driving carbon reduction in the industries they oversee. Does the Secretary of State agree that the powers of the Office of Rail and Road and the Civil Aviation Authority should be strengthened to ensure that the road, rail, bus and aviation industries meet their climate crisis obligations? Have the Government issued any guidance to the transport industry regulators in that regard?
Finally, the Department for Transport does not have a carbon reduction budget or target. The Government should set a carbon budget consistent with the aspirations of the Paris agreement and beyond. In addition, each of the sectors—rail, road, aviation and maritime—should have carbon reduction targets in line with that departmental budget, and departmental spending should be reallocated to achieve the changes required.
Claire O’Neill is correct to say that the Prime Minister “doesn’t get it” on the climate crisis. The Transport Secretary has an opportunity to show that he does get it by halting the colossal road-building programme and his plans for airport expansion, and by boosting investment in active travel, public transport and electric vehicles.
Dealing with transport is critical to confronting the climate crisis. We are compelled to take action by decarbonising not only to respond to the existential threat to our one and only planet but to embrace the green industrial revolution and, simultaneously, to address the gross and obscene deficits in social justice. We must level up so that everyone across our nation has affordable, accessible and sustainable transport. We must connect  our communities and businesses, and we must give people the means to get to work, to get to college, school or university and to get to hospital, and to help address social isolation.
The moral, social and economic imperatives are urgent and stark, and I urge this Government to take the bold and radical action that is necessary. The country, indeed the world, is watching. I commend this motion to the House.

Grant Shapps: I welcome this opportunity to debate transport and climate change. Despite some of the less well-thought-out jibes across the Dispatch Box, we are all pretty much in agreement on the need to address this issue; after all, we have all legislated to reach zero carbon by 2050. That may be where the agreement ends, but it is only right, in that spirit of co-operation, also to agree that this country has made remarkable, world-beating progress towards the targets in recent years, particularly in the past decade or so.
We have already heard mention from the Dispatch Box today of all the solar installations, 99% of which have been installed since 2010. We have seen a huge increase in the amount of renewable energy, particularly from offshore wind—53% of the power now produced comes from wind, solar and nuclear. That means we are getting much more renewable in our energy. That is a good thing and we ought to be celebrating it, but clearly many greater challenges are coming down the line. That is why decarbonisation is so important, but also why we should recognise that we have decarbonised faster than any other G20 country; last year, we led by passing that legislation. Across the House, we clearly agree on reaching zero emissions by 2050 and making that legally binding, which is essential. We are consulting on bringing forward the date for ending the sale of fossil-fuel diesel and petrol cars earlier than 2040, which was previously highlighted.
When I hear us being lectured about the electrification of our railway lines, it is worth remembering that in 13 years of power the Labour party electrified one mile of lines per year. We have done 10 times better, having electrified hundreds of miles. I was grateful to hear the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) welcoming the new line that I helped launch yesterday. Indeed, I helped work on getting the treaty signed. He described it as London to Amsterdam, but in fact trains were already running from London to Amsterdam and this was about the journey the other way around; the launch means that people no longer need to decant at Brussels, which was a 50-minute process, to go through passport control. From April, people will be able to come straight back, without getting off. He is absolutely right to say that that is an enormous benefit in terms of efficiency and saving carbon dioxide when travelling from Europe.
The new line is the not the end: we are looking to develop further routes, including Frankfurt, and, in the summer, Lille, Lyon, Bordeaux as well as many others. This is an excellent example of how, although we have left the EU, we have most certainly not left Europe and we are able to strengthen our ties in a meaningful way.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of our public want us to bust congestion and get people on the move, so that they can get to school and work more easily? That requires short-term measures to  improve junctions, change light arrangements and so forth, and medium-term measures to put in bypasses and additional capacity. That is a very green thing to do, because then we stop people churning out emissions in traffic jams.

Grant Shapps: I agree with my right hon. Friend on the importance of stopping those pinch points, where traffic just idles, pumps out all this CO2 and creates pollution. That clearly is not sensible, so we have a big programme in place; we are putting £28 billion into our roads. We will shortly be announcing more developments on our road investment strategy, RIS2, and getting rid of more of those pinch points. It is also important to get the traffic that runs on those roads to be greener and to get greener quicker, with electric and other forms of lower carbon and zero carbon production. I will talk a little more about that shortly, but I am clear that simply saying that we will not build any roads anywhere will increase pollution and the toxins in our atmosphere, not reduce them.
The targets have to be tough, and they have to be challenging. That will help to focus the minds not just of the consumer and business but of Government, and that is absolutely right. Targets also have to be viable and practical. That goes to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). It will not be easy to meet these goals if we simply try to do it by destroying industry along the way. That point is easily forgotten, but if we do forget it, we will not get the miracle that we have had of a 42% reduction in the amount of CO2 at the same time as a 73% increase in the size of the economy.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that actually the best way to tackle congestion is to get people off the roads and on to bicycles, walking, and indeed using public transport? I want to come back to his point about electrification of the railways. It is good to hear that he is now committed to, and an advocate for, electrification. We are getting electrification of the midland main line to Kettering and Corby. The only way to decarbonise an intensively used railway like that is to electrify it. Is he willing to look at electrifying it all the way through to Sheffield and Nottingham?

Grant Shapps: I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that under this Government we are seeing, and will be seeing, a lot more electrification. I do take slight issue with the idea that the only way to get to a decarbonised railway is to electrify it. There are other possibilities, including, in particular, hydrogen, which we are starting to experiment with on the railways right now—an excellent plan going forward. On her point about roads, bicycles and other forms of transport need roads, so we still have to have them built in this country. I simply do not believe that there is a way round that.

Jessica Morden: rose—

Grant Shapps: I will make a little progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
It is important to realise that we are very keen not only to reduce CO2 but to grow the economy at the same time. The two things are not incompatible; in fact, they go hand in hand. We can do this more successfully if we grow the economy, because then we can get in  front of the technology. One of the measures in the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday was to consult on ending petrol and diesel car sales in 2035 or earlier rather than 2040, with the aim of ensuring that the British car manufacturing sector gets the advantage of completely clean travel, which they can then exploit by selling it to the rest of the world. That is one reason why we should be so ambitious to do this. The sector can create jobs—millions of jobs. It is already employing very large numbers of people in this country. This Government want to help society and the economy adapt towards the new decarbonised world.
I recognise—I have said this at the Dispatch Box as recently as last week—that transport contributes over a quarter of the UK’s domestic greenhouse gases; it is a big number. It has become the leading source of greenhouse gases, considering that energy, as described before, has become so much less polluting. That is why, as I say, we came out with the target to move forward with the end of petrol and diesel. That is faster, I should say, than any other European market. In a country that does not produce cars, it is easy to say, “You must only buy an electric car”, but we have a dozen different domestic car producers that we have to take with us on this—and we will. That is why we are investing £1.5 billion over six years to make the UK the best place to own and to manufacture electric cars, and why we are delivering a further £1 billion to transform the automotive sector. Schemes like the Faraday battery challenge and the Advanced Propulsion Centre are funding development of the supply chain, and that can be massively important to this transformation.

Vicky Ford: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on getting electrification of our cars and support his energy in doing so. Our electric cars obviously do need roads to drive on. May I therefore thank him for the contribution that he has made to making sure that my local ancient flyover is coming down next week? Can he confirm that there is funding for pinch points, for instance to replace that junction, and for ensuring that a new, modern, all-singing, all-dancing option of electric vehicles, buses, bicycles and so on remains available for the whole country?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to argue that the Army and Navy flyover should be removed now that it has been closed. We want to make sure, whatever happens, that very low carbon—zero carbon—alternatives are available for people commuting in that area.
I have said at the Dispatch Box that some of the speeches I have heard show that the point has been missed. We have more charging locations in this country than petrol stations. I am not talking about charging points in driveways, where people are fortunate enough to park off-road. I am talking about publicly available charging locations. There are more of those than petrol stations, with one of the largest charging networks in Europe. As a driver of electric cars, who has experienced range anxiety once or twice, I am relieved that that network is growing all the time. An electric car is sold every 15 minutes and the number of people registering for electric cars has more than doubled in the past year, so we have reached the point where this is starting to expand massively.

Jessica Morden: Electric vehicles need steel—crucially, electrical steel. Just before Christmas, Tata mothballed the only maker of electrical steel in the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have to step in and help the steel industry at this difficult time if we want an end-to-end supply chain in this country?

Grant Shapps: That was worked in well, and there is an important point to make. We want to ensure the supply chain not just of steel and electrical steel but of batteries in a gigafactory. Last October, we announced that we are putting up to £1 billion into supporting a gigafactory in this country. People can also expect us to want to support the supply chain, because it is good business, rather than providing subsidy for the sake of subsidy, to make this country a leading one in Europe. We sell one in five of the electric cars sold in Europe and we build them here, and we want to expand that a lot further.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Grant Shapps: I will make progress, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Last year, we announced investment of £220 million to make buses more efficient and green. I shall say more about that very shortly. Since 2010, we have provided over £240 million to replace and upgrade our bus fleet, resulting in more than 7,000 cleaner buses on our roads. That is on top of £576 million for local authorities to develop innovative plans for buses, and £288 million for the clean air fund to support individual businesses affected by all those things. I agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who said that we had to move to green buses—he is absolutely right—and that is exactly what we are doing. Everybody should have the opportunity to get on a bus that is reliable, efficient and clean.

Janet Daby: I had a conversation yesterday with some firefighters, and it came to light that if lithium batteries caught fire they would need to be put out with sand. Our firefighters are not equipped with that on their fire engines, so will the Secretary of State respond to that?

Grant Shapps: That is not something that I have come across, and I am happy to look into it with my team of Ministers, because public safety measures need to be investigated properly. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will write to her with details.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Grant Shapps: I have another few minutes, and I want to give other colleagues a chance to contribute, so I will conclude by mentioning a few more things, particularly promoting healthier forms of transport such as cycling and walking. A number of principles will guide our future mobility urban strategy. We are investing £2.5 billion in the Transforming Cities fund, to help cities and regions throughout England tackle congestion with greener forms of transport, particularly cycling and walking. There are brilliant examples in Manchester, for example, with the Bee Network, and in Birmingham, where there is a network to do the same things. We will be going further and faster on cycling and walking.
We have briefly touched on rail and our enthusiasm for it. It is worth mentioning the £48 billion being provided just in this particular period—control period 6  of Network Rail’s expenditure. That is without Northern Powerhouse Rail and without whatever decisions we reach on high-speed rail. The amount of money going into rail is a record in this country. I know that many colleagues were in Parliament yesterday when we discussed the £0.5 billion going into the Beeching reversal fund, reopening lines that were closed in those savage cuts in the ’60s and ’70s. As I said before, only the Labour party could think that half a billion pounds is small change. And that is just a down payment—that is where we are starting, folks. Yesterday, we had a fantastic meeting with colleagues from all parties—I have not heard any of them complain—who are interested in the reopening of their local Beeching lines, which were savagely cut, mostly under the Labour Governments of the 1970s. Some 5,000 miles of track and 2,300 stations were closed; now that we are opening them all up, all Labour Members say is that we should have done it sooner. You could not make it up.
We are absolutely to committed to the plan to get railways open, and we also take a much more realistic view when it comes to aviation. Just last night I was with representatives of the aviation sector, which has itself signed a plan to get to zero carbon by 2050. The challenge is straightforward enough with cars, because we already have the technology. It is possible with buses and it is easier with other forms of transport, but it is uniquely complex with aircraft, given their weight and the performance requirements that have until now required aviation fuel. The aviation sector’s commitment to get to zero carbon is one of the most serious challenges for this country’s transport plan. I am impressed by the sector’s ideas and the Government will work closely with it, through carbon offsetting—

Andy McDonald: Ah!

Grant Shapps: That is just the start. We will work closely with the aviation sector through reduction schemes, by working with international aviation and by producing fuels that do not emit carbon in the same way that fuels do today. The Future Flight Challenge includes £300 million for greener aviation, to make aviation electric. I was not going to repeat the point, but I will now that I have been challenged: we are working on programmes to produce electric and hybrid planes and to use biofuels and other technologies to cut emissions from fuel. That is extremely important.

Neil Coyle: The Secretary of State has not mentioned the tube as a means of decarbonising our transport infrastructure. In 2015, the Prime Minister claimed that the Bakerloo line extension was firmly on track to open by 2030; where are the Government at on that now? Will the Secretary of State meet Members who represent the communities that that extension would benefit?

Grant Shapps: As the hon. Gentleman will know, that project is led by the Mayor of London and Transport for London, but I meet and speak to them regularly and would be happy to chase up the project on his behalf, because it is in all our interests to see Crossrail and the Victoria line completed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out.

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming down to Gloucestershire during the election campaign to see the Air Balloon  roundabout which, as he knows, is a pinch point that causes pollution and danger for motorists. He mentioned road investment strategy 2 earlier in his speech and said that it would be announced shortly; can he provide any further detail as to when we can expect to see it?

Grant Shapps: It will arrive before very long. I have seen the problems at the Air Balloon roundabout with very own eyes, along with my hon. Friend and other colleagues, and I am keen to see that pinch point addressed. Although I cannot announce the RIS2 outcome, my hon. Friend will not have to wait long to find it out. I look forward to visiting the area again in the near future.
To sum up, we are well aware of the effort that is required—it is a great national effort. This is not something that will happen in one Department or in one corner of the economy; it has to happen throughout the whole of Government and the whole of society. I fully recognise that transport needs to lead the way when it comes to departmental reductions in the amount of greenhouse gases and toxins in the atmosphere. That is why we are working on our transport decarbonisation plan, which in itself will be world leading, both in its scale of ambition and in what it will produce for this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Colleagues will be able to see that a large number of people want to speak in the debate, so after the SNP spokesperson there will be an immediate time limit of six minutes.

Gavin Newlands: I will start in a positive vein by welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of an acceleration in the phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles. Of course, he still lags a good few years behind the Scottish Government’s target of 2032, but it is progress none the less and we welcome it.
The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Michael Matheson, today set out Scotland’s national transport strategy. It is an ambitious and bold strategy that places decarbonisation and our net zero target at the heart of all the Scottish Government do. It also places active travel where it should be—at the top of the transport hierarchy. The benefits to our transport system and the environment are manifold, but the wider benefits are in many ways greater still. Diseases of inactivity are among the biggest killers in western society. Placing walking at the centre of any transport strategy boosts life expectancy and allows our NHS to spend resources and time elsewhere. This debate, therefore, is not just about the environmental benefits for all; it is also about the environment in which each of us lives and how we can improve it to give everyone the best outcome possible for life.
That requires a strategy—something that is missing from the UK Government’s approach. There is no national transport strategy for England or the UK as a whole. There are investment strategies, inclusive strategies, strategic plans for the north of England, and infrastructure skills strategies. They are all important and part of the mix, but there is no overall plan to improve transport in the round. My colleague at Holyrood deserves praise  for the work that he and Transport Scotland have done to embed in a national plan of action the principles of fairness, environmental justice and sustainable growth in tackling inequalities and transitioning to net zero.
To achieve those net zero targets, we need a strong lead from the state, with clear-headed policies, not just in terms of our obligations to cut emissions and tackle climate change, but in order to develop our economy and society more generally. Gone are the days when millions of us lived within a short walk of our workplaces and neighbourhood shops. We now need and expect to be able to travel with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of comfort, which is exactly how it should be in a wealthy 21st-century society.
That sort of system cannot focus on one solution alone; we need a basket of policies that fit all our lives and take into account our varying geography and topography. We can look at what works and at what can be done now and in the near future to accelerate sustainability. One example, as both Front-Bench representatives have said, is to improve our buses. In Scotland, nearly 400 million bus journeys are made every year, which is four times the number of ScotRail passenger journeys. More than one quarter of all people use a bus at least once a week, and nearly one fifth of our school students travel to school on a bus. Four thousand buses result in more than 1 million journeys every day, travelling the length and breadth of Scotland, from Shetland to Stranraer.
For far too long, however, the public bus system has been overshadowed by rail. Barely a week goes by without some breathless coverage—often merited, sometimes not so much—of an incident on our railways. Meanwhile, the slow decline of bus services and the drift downwards of patronage and coverage largely goes unreported and is not commented on.
That is exactly why last September the Scottish Government’s programme for government announced a record half a billion pounds of investment in infrastructure designed to improve bus services by reducing and removing the impacts of congestion, giving more priority to buses, and fundamentally increasing buses’ modal share and reducing our use of private cars. That modal share slipped below 10% for the first time in the most recent round of transport statistics, which is just one reason why that £500 million represents a massively positive breakthrough in transport priorities.
Investing in the bus network is not just about reducing emissions and congestion or moving to decarbonisation; it is also about social justice. Put simply, the lower somebody’s income, the more likely they are to rely on the bus. Social mobility is not just a figure of speech. Flexible transport services go hand in hand with ease of access to employment and they improve labour market options for employees. Supporting bus travel is a fully progressive policy that shifts wealth and income to the poorest in society and empowers people to have a much wider choice of where and how they want to earn a living.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of extra funding to reinstate some of the slash-and-burn policies instituted by Beeching nearly 60 years ago, but I am concerned about the “reversing Beeching” programme. How does a series of separate branch lines scattered  around the country form part of a system-wide plan for a rail network with a bigger picture for the regional and national level? Whatever people’s opinions of HS2, it is at least an attempt to think strategically about future transport needs.
I know the Secretary of State will disagree with me, as he has done previously, on the £500 million being a drop in the ocean, but that is the truth. The Borders railway, which was a strategic project aimed at massively boosting connectivity and the economy of a part of the world that is too often left to fend for itself with crumbs from the table, and was one of the final victims of the Beeching report in 1969, cost £294 million for 40 miles of single-line track over a distance of 31 miles. With consumer prices index inflation factored in, that is £328 million. By the time the consultants, the press officers, and the hi-vis and hard hats for visiting dignitaries and—dare I say—Secretaries of State have been paid for, the £500 million promised by the DFT will pay for about one and a half Borders railways somewhere in England. That would be 60 miles of track, added to a network of over 16,000 miles in England and Wales—an increase of 0.38%.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Member is making an important point. The budget for HS2 is about £100 billion, and Lord Berkeley’s dissenting report says that the cost-benefit ratio is 60p for every £1 spent, so the British Government are about to burn £40 billion. Would it not be better to chuck that £100 billion into the Beeching reversal fund, because that would do far more for connectivity than HS2?

Gavin Newlands: I certainly agree that the money that has been promised thus far is insignificant in reality. I think Transport for the North put it best when it said that around £70 billion is required just to increase connectivity to the requisite level in the north of England, let alone the rest of the country. The best I can say is that £500 million is a good start.

Alan Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gavin Newlands: I will give way briefly, but I am conscious of Madam Deputy Speaker’s urgings about time.

Alan Brown: I have just received a response to a written question about that £500 million, but the Government have confirmed that it is not new money in the Department’s spending. It is actually money that has clearly come from somewhere else. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is another Tory con trick, and that the investment coming forward should actually be new?

Gavin Newlands: I absolutely agree, but I am hardly surprised by the response to my hon. Friend’s written question. It is not unusual for this Government to double- count money and re-announce the same figures.
I do welcome the new openings, if they occur. My concern is that they simply do not go far enough in creating an integrated network of the type that Beeching was happy to destroy. In 20 years of devolution, successive Scottish Governments—both SNP and Labour-led, to be fair—have understood the importance of bold action to reverse the cuts made in a previous era. Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall, the Borders railway, Stirling to Alloa  and the extension of the Maryhill line are all reinstatements of Beeching closures. We have the biggest programme of electrification and decarbonisation of the rail network in 40 years, with all services between our two biggest cities running under the wires, as well as Stirling, Alloa, Falkirk, Paisley Canal and Whifflet, with much more in the pipeline as part of the rolling programme of electrification. The result of all this—and much more—will be a carbon-free rail system that helps Scotland to achieve net zero. I hope that the UK Transport Secretary will visit the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Edinburgh during his tenure to hear how it is done, and see the real investment going into Scotland’s railways day in, day out. These are not magic fixes or changes beyond our economic capacity. They are realistic, achievable solutions to the challenges that we all face.
Many of our roads are at—or, in some cases, over—capacity, which brings increased congestion and the resultant increased emissions. There are those who say we should stop building roads altogether. I say, tell that to the residents of Aberdeenshire, who have seen their travel transformed by the western peripheral route, or those crossing the Forth on the replacement crossing, which has seen not one day of closure due to high winds—a bridge built in the face of opposition from many who are now curiously quiet about their lack of support. Tell it to the residents of Dalry, who, thanks to the newly opened bypass, which was completed seven months ahead of schedule, have seen traffic and pollution in their town plummet.
Targeted investments in our road network, combined with the massive expansion in electric charge points and projects such as the electric highway along the A9 are all part of the mix in reducing emissions. Private transport must be available to as wide a cohort of society as possible. That is why Scottish households can now access grant funding that will, on average, pay for 80% of the cost of installing a home charge point—30% more than the rest of the UK. There are more public charging points per head in Scotland than anywhere else outside London. We are rolling out support for e-bikes, social landlords who want to develop zero-emissions infrastructure and car clubs. The low carbon transport loan means that more households than ever are in a position to make the switch now, rather than later. With used electric cars now becoming eligible, the choice available is getting wider all the time.
Scotland is doing well, but Norway is soaring ahead in electric car deployment. By the end of 2020, half of all new cars sold there will be electric—the result of bold policies and a determination by Government to tackle a societal and environmental challenge. Those bold policies are only possible because Norway has the resources and the power of an independent state to make those changes. If the UK does not want to use the powers it has to make those changes, it should ensure that Scotland does.
Scotland has shown global leadership by being the first country to include international aviation and shipping emissions in its statutory climate targets. Aviation is undoubtedly the most difficult sector to decarbonise, although I welcome the industry’s recently announced commitment to do so by 2050. The SNP has already committed to decarbonise flights within Scotland by 2040 and aims to have the world’s first zero-emission aviation region, in partnership with Highlands and Islands Airports.
Too often, transport policy appears to be a contradiction in terms. In the short time since taking up my position as the SNP’s transport spokesperson, I have been genuinely surprised at the lack of joined-up thinking that pervades so much of what is sketched out for the future. Putting the zero-emission society at the heart of transport planning and wider Government policy means joining up some of that thinking towards a common goal and a common strategy. That is exactly what the Scottish Government have been doing and continue to do, and it is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance will be doing tomorrow when he unveils the Scottish budget. It is what the Cabinet Secretary for Transport did earlier this afternoon at Holyrood, and I hope it is what the UK Transport Secretary will begin to do as he reflects on this debate in the weeks and months ahead.

Huw Merriman: I thank all the colleagues who supported me—or told me they did—in the election for the Transport Committee, which it is a great privilege to chair. I have not done much for diversity, because I think I am the first male to chair it. There is a serious issue with diversity in the transport sector, and I recognise that I am not exactly waving the flag for that. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chaired the Committee previously with such rigour. She was an incredibly popular Chair, and it is a delight to see her back on the Committee. She has promised not to be a backseat driver, but another formidable female politician once said the same thing in this place. I am happy to be driven from the back.
It is a delight to speak on such a wide-ranging motion tabled by the Opposition. I do not agree with many parts of it, but I welcome the fact that we are debating them, and none more so than the need to decarbonise our transport sector. We have had great success in reducing emissions by 40% since the 1990s. Pretty much every sector except transport has reduced emissions over the past few years. It has remained stubbornly difficult to reduce transport’s footprint. Surface transport accounts for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and transport as a whole accounts for 33%. In fact, between 2014 and 2016, emissions from transport went up, so it is clearly the sector that needs the most focus, and I welcome the fact that it is getting that focus today.
I want to talk about some of the exciting innovations in the transport sector that we need to harness and encourage in order to meet our net zero carbon commitment.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State is the only person in the debate so far to mention hydrogen, the true zero-emission product that can help us to achieve the goals set out by the Government?

Huw Merriman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, I was just about to talk about hydrogen, so that is a brilliant segue.
The Transport Committee visited the engineer who first retrofitted a conventional train with hydrogen technology. We talk about the need to electrify and move away from diesel, but 2% of the national grid is taken up by electrified rail, and if only 40% of energy is coming from renewables, that means that 60% is still unpleasant. We need to invest in hydrogen, and it is very exciting that we have the engineer in this country who will enable us to do just that.

Alex Sobel: rose—

Huw Merriman: I will take one more intervention, as I am conscious that others wish to speak.

Alex Sobel: I congratulate the hon. Member on his election. On hydrogen production for trains and transport in general, we need to think about how it is produced. ITM Power in Yorkshire produces its hydrogen using electrolysis, which actually means it is a zero carbon fuel. We need to take this in the round, because sometimes decarbonisation does not mean decarbonisation if the fuel still needs carbon and fossil fuels for its manufacture.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Member is absolutely right. If we are to call it completely green technology, it needs to be as he describes. Perhaps we should have in mind a trip to Yorkshire.
I want to talk about the development of batteries in trains. On the Southern network, for example, there are still two diesel services, even though there is usually a third rail, because part of it does not have the third rail and the services therefore need diesel all the way through. The idea with batteries is that we charge and then use them for the part where there is no third rail. As I have mentioned, that incredibly exciting technology will allow us to move away from diesel.
I want to touch on parts of the motion that involve a more wide-ranging set of issues. There is the desire to cut rail and bus fares, and I absolutely agree that we should be looking to lessen increases in rail fares. It is very frustrating that we still use RPI rather than CPI to calculate rail fare increases; in the past year, fares would have gone up by 2.5% instead of 3.1%. The challenge is that a third of all the train operators’ costs go on employing staff, and if the staff continue to be paid on an RPI basis it will be very difficult to move that over.
I am excited by the ideas on fare reform that have been put forward mostly under the guise of the Williams review. It is absolutely ludicrous that those travelling to work for three days of the week, perhaps working from home during the rest of the week, are still unable to get a three-day-week ticket. That can make it too expensive for people to commute, so I would welcome such a reform.
I would dearly love to see automatic rail compensation. The train operators take the money they receive from Network Rail when there are delays, but two thirds of passengers who experience a delay do not claim compensation, so the rest is banked by the train operators. I would like them to have to ring-fence that money in a fund, and to invest in technology that allows us to tap on and tap off the train, so that if the train is delayed by more than 15 or 30 minutes, we would get compensation into our bank account without even needing to know that we had been delayed. We must get the train operators to deliver that technology, so that commuters and passengers feel that they are getting value for money, or at least that they are getting compensated when they have not had value for money.
I will not mention HS2, because I fear that will come up in many other debates, but I certainly envisage the Committee looking at it. However, I do want to talk about buses. Three out of five of all public transport journeys are undertaken by bus, yet it just does not receive the attention it should. I am looking at my hon.  Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and he and I may be about to disagree, but when he was the Buses Minister, we had the Bus Services Act 2017. I really felt it should be a case of franchising for all authorities that wanted it, followed by partnerships and then followed by municipals in situations where partnerships and franchises did not work. I know the view was to stop further municipals, but if we now say to local authorities, “If developers aren’t building out, then you build council houses and compete with them”, why can we not do the same thing when the bus service disappears?
On the buses strategy, may we examine more closely whether deregulation is working? With train operators, the trains are paid for by the passengers who use them, so there is no subsidy as far as that is concerned, yet we tell the train operators when the trains stop and how often. However, when it comes to buses, which receive a £2 billion public sector subsidy, we do not impose the same conditions, so bus services may disappear, or get rerouted so that they no longer pass the GP’s surgery.
The buses strategy, which I absolutely welcome, needs to set out some teeth in terms of what bus service providers provide to our constituents. I say that very much looking at my new parliamentary party, with colleagues from parts of the north that we have not represented before, where the bus is even more of an essential service than in other parts we have previously reached. I very much hope that we will have the power, on the Conservative Benches, to ensure that bus services are properly restored. I also ask why young people cannot get to places of Saturday or part-time work because the bus service is too expensive or does not exist, yet we allow millionaire pensioners to receive free bus travel. It is essential that we ask these very searching questions.
We have talked about aviation; it is going to be incredibly difficult to green, but I disagree with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment that we should not proceed with Heathrow. We need to demonstrate that we can still build big.
I do not have time to talk about motor vehicles, but 70% of the footprint is motor vehicles, and a third of all journeys taken by e-scooters would have been by car. We must legalise e-scooters.

Bridget Phillipson: This is the first time that I have spoken on transport in this Parliament, but it is far from the first time that I have spoken on these issues over the past decade in this House. Indeed, the fact that I shall repeat many of the points that I have previously raised with other Ministers shows just how little progress there has been in delivering a reliable, affordable and integrated public transport system for people throughout the north-east, including my constituents.
We are a region with incredible potential, but our inadequate transport links hold us back. An expanded, integrated network would address so many of the challenges we face, from the economy to the environment. It would unlock job opportunities by allowing people without a car to access areas they would have struggled to get to before. It would help ward off loneliness and isolation. And it would tackle the poor air quality that is present in so many communities across our country.
Making sure that areas such as mine can benefit from a well-run, integrated system that puts passengers first should not be beyond us, but in my constituency it has been decades since we were last served by any form of passenger rail service. That means that buses are the only option for those wishing to use public transport, but those services are often unreliable and costly, and are too often run for the benefit of shareholders, not the taxpayer. In the last decade alone, several routes have been cut or altered, often on spurious grounds, usually connected to profit, with little warning for local people, leaving residents cut off from GPs, hospitals and schools.
The demand for good public transport in the north-east is there; we are the region that, outside London, has the lowest rate of car ownership in the country. We also have great economic potential; we are the only UK region to consistently deliver a trade surplus and the leading exporting region in the UK.
For years now, we have heard great rhetoric about the Government’s commitment to the north, and we have heard even more in recent months, but that has not been matched by action. For too long our region has suffered from a major imbalance in transport spending per head when compared with other English regions.
There are a number of credible and viable ways in which access to public transport could be opened up. Houghton and Sunderland South is home to a section of the Leamside line, a mothballed rail corridor running between Newcastle and Durham, passing through Fence Houses and Penshaw and then over the incredible Victoria viaduct. Nexus has identified the long-term strategic benefits of reopening the Leamside line. It would add capacity for both freight and passenger services operating at local, regional and national level. That would relieve pressure on the east coast main line, which is already at capacity and is set to face greater demands in years to come. I invite the Minister to come and see the Leamside line, to appreciate what could be achieved if we were able to reopen that important line. I would also urge the Secretary of State to look favourably on funding if any business case is put before him, in the context of the strategic outline business case.
Another long-term prospect would be the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Doxford international business park in my constituency, where thousands of workers are based. There is a real desire among my constituents to make that a reality—a point I made when responding to the Government’s consultation on light rail. Ministers had hoped to respond to the consultation by the end of last year. I take the opportunity to ask the Minister when he expects the Government response to be forthcoming.
Reopening the Leamside line and extending the Metro are just two examples of how investment in rail and light rail could benefit my constituency. Doubtless we shall hear many similar cases made by Members across the House. I appreciate that what I have set out represents longer-term projects that will take time and capital investment to deliver, but there is one straightforward way that the Government could immediately address the quality of public transport in my constituency—by sorting out our failed bus network.
We have seen bus routes cut on a whim, with the absolute minimum of notice, and with no requirement to release the data on profitability that leads to those decisions. It is unsurprising, therefore, that in the north-east  bus patronage among adults has continued to fall substantially in recent years. These are the consequences of deregulation in the ’80s, which, as I have argued before, has been an unmitigated disaster for constituencies like mine. There is no reason why local bus services in the north-east cannot operate on the basis of an integrated transport system with genuine smart ticketing that allows people greater flexibility in travelling.
Ministers should give us the powers we need to franchise bus services, so that local people have a greater say, and ensure that passengers and taxpayers are put ahead of the interests of bus company shareholders. Making such a change in legislation need not be difficult if the political will exists, and it would provide a much quicker solution to tackling the inadequate public transport network that we see throughout the north-east.
If all this talk of so-called levelling up is to mean anything, we need to see much more action and fewer platitudes from Ministers, and a clear demonstration that they will work with us—communities, businesses and politicians, right across the north-east—to unlock our potential and invest in our transport network.

Jeremy Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). I want to use my time this afternoon to speak about a project, the argument for which is often that it reduces overall carbon emissions from our transport network, although that argument is debatable. The project, inevitably, is HS2.
The motion is really about the strategic outline of transport policy for the foreseeable future. I believe that high-speed rail can be a part of that. From an environmental point of view, trains are better than planes and high- speed rail can provide genuine competition for short- haul flights. Taking city-to-city passenger traffic off the conventional rail network and on to high-speed rail lines can leave more space for stopping passenger services to more destinations and can leave more train pathways for freight services that take freight off our roads. Those are all, in my judgment, good arguments, but they are arguments for a well-designed and well delivered high-speed rail network. I am afraid that I do not believe that HS2 qualifies for that description.
If it is to be built, HS2 will be a significant part of our strategic transport infrastructure, with many miles of new track. I accept, of course, that building such infrastructure in a small and crowded island is bound to be disruptive, but those responsible for building the infrastructure have a responsibility to minimise the disruption. People whose homes, businesses and farm land will be demolished, diminished or devalued by HS2 have a right to be treated fairly and with decency. In the decade of this project’s development, and in my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, they too often have not been. Communication is invariably poor, consideration for distress caused is lacking, and compensation is grudgingly agreed and painfully and slowly extracted.
I accept, of course, that taxpayers’ interests must be protected, but the nation has an obligation to those who take a personal hit for national benefit. That obligation falls to be discharged by HS2 Ltd in this project. There are individual HS2 Ltd employees who do their best to  be compassionate and responsive, but I have to say that I find HS2 Ltd as a corporate entity to be both chronically inefficient and institutionally callous. If HS2 is to proceed, that must change. What makes it worse for so many of those individually affected is that they do not accept the case for HS2 in the first place. Many more of our constituents who are not directly affected by HS2, but are profoundly concerned about the environmental damage it will do and the price tag it has, feel the same.
A project of this scale will inevitably cost a great deal and its cost cannot be properly considered in isolation from its benefits, both direct and indirect, but the financial cost of HS2 is not just high but rising fast: £32.7 billion by 2012; £55.7 billion by 2015; and at least £72 billion by last year, with few believing it will stop there. What makes HS2 very high cost is its very high speed and the expensive engineering required to achieve it. It is also the requirement for very high speed that removes the project’s ability to divert around sensitive areas and reduce environmental damage. Very high speed used to be the primary argument for HS2, but significantly it is now capacity improvements that are argued as justification for the project. Those capacity improvements do not require the very high speeds to which this project is currently working.

Greg Smith: I wholly agree with many of the arguments that my right hon. and learned Friend is making. Does he agree that there are other schemes out there, such as reopening the Great Central line, that would improve capacity without having to go down the environmentally damaging route of HS2?

Jeremy Wright: I do. We should use the pause that the Secretary of State has sensibly ordered to develop a cheaper, less environmentally damaging high-speed rail network—perhaps one that lays additional track along existing transport corridors. With the money that we can save, we can invest in more of the transport projects that are mentioned in this debate while still investing in high-speed rail. To my mind, that would be a better strategic balance in transport policy.
I recognise that going back to the drawing board on high-speed rail will cause a delay to its coming into operation, but as my hon. Friend rightly says there are alternatives that have already been partially developed. Let us recall that only last year we were told that phase 1 of HS2 would, in any event, be delayed by at least two years and that phase 2 would be delayed by at least three years. High-speed rail will change our transport future for generations to come. It is too important to get wrong, and we can do better than HS2.

Rosie Winterton: It is a great pleasure to call Tahir Ali to make his maiden speech.

Tahir Ali: I am truly honoured and privileged to be here representing the people of my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green. I am forever grateful to the constituents who have put their trust and confidence in me, with such a huge mandate.
I have waited until today, 5 February, to make my maiden speech for two reasons. Many Members in the Chamber may not be aware that today is Kashmir Solidarity Day. Kashmir Solidarity Day is in observance of support for and to express unity and solidarity with the people of Indian-administered Kashmir, and to pay homage to the tens of thousands of Kashmiris who have been martyred in the conflict by Indian armed forces.
On 5 August—exactly six months ago today—the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Indian Government decided to strip the state of Jammu and Kashmir of autonomy after seven decades, characterising it as the correction of a historical blunder. This act is illegal and the international community’s silence on the matter is worrying. In south Asia, the long drawn-out dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains a hanging fireball between two hostile nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan. It has been bringing human misery in the form of wars on the issue and it continues to threaten regional and global peace. My role is not to take sides, such as to be pro-Pakistan or anti-India. I believe, as a Kashmiri, that it is my duty to highlight the abuses and human rights violations to this House.
Even after seven decades, the people of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are waiting for their right of self-determination, promised by the United Nations. Notwithstanding over 25 United Nations resolutions calling for a solution to the dispute, India remains reluctant to grant the Kashmiris their right of self-determination. The Scottish people were rightly afforded a referendum to express their desire for independence. The UK had a referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU. Seven decades later, the people of Kashmir are still waiting. This is not, in my view, a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan—the international community needs to take responsibility.
More than 40% of my constituents come from the region of Kashmir, so it is important to them to see the matter resolved, but that can happen only if the international community, through the United Nations, seeks a peaceful and lasting resolution. By abrogation, the special status of Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir was violated on 5 August last year. The Indian Government have audaciously defied the basic norms and principles underpinning the concepts of democracy and human freedom. India has deprived the Kashmiris of the right to express themselves peacefully. Even elderly women who marked a silent protest in Srinagar, the capital of India-administered Kashmir, were not spared and have been detained.
The Indian army and paramilitary forces operating in Indian-held Kashmir have deliberately and methodically violated the fundamental norms of international human rights law, for which the Indian Government are responsible, despite their being a signatory to these laws. I demand an end to all elements of siege in the Kashmir valley and the full restoration of telephony and internet and of the democratic and basic human rights of the besieged Kashmiris. I demand that they allow them and foreign media to travel and report unhindered and commit to providing a safe environment for human rights defenders and organisations so that they can conduct their work without fear. We have an international obligation to support peace, equality and just treatment for all humans. To quote Martin Luther King,
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
It would be easy to make headline-grabbing jibes at Conservative Members, but I will rise above that in my maiden speech and talk about the issues that need to be addressed in Birmingham, Hall Green. The second reason I have chosen to make my maiden speech today is that this is National Apprenticeship Week. In 1989, at the age of 17, I secured an engineering apprenticeship with Royal Mail. Apprenticeships are an excellent way of providing secure jobs, a regular income and an early start into employment, and are an alternative to the academic route. My apprenticeship provided me with an opportunity to go to university; I was the first in my family to do so. Much has been done in recent years on apprenticeships, as is acknowledged, and much is being done by many councils across the country, but a lot more could be done. The next step has to be Whitehall giving control to the regions and local authorities. Many have benefited from apprenticeships, but many more could benefit, and not just the young either; older people can benefit too.
The climate emergency needs to be taken seriously and can be avoided if bold and ambitious steps are taken. Hundreds of properties have been flooded in Birmingham, Hall Green and remain at risk of flooding from the River Cole. Urgent and adequate funding and a programme are required to prevent such disasters from happening again.
Many schools in Birmingham, Hall Green do not open for the full five days a week owing to inadequate funding. Immediate steps need to be taken as a matter of urgency so that all schools receive the adequate funding they need to open for the full five days. Part-time schooling needs to end immediately. It is also appalling that in this, the fifth-richest country in the world, children are going to school hungry. The only meal some of them have in the day is the one they have at school. It is shameful that, while we enjoy the benefits of a subsidised canteen here in Parliament, many children in our constituencies remain hungry and are resorting to food banks in record numbers. We ought to be ashamed.
As long as I am in this House, I will continue to speak up for investment in services and the creation of opportunities for everyone in Birmingham, Hall Green. I will continue to speak up and challenge the Government to invest in public services that will have a positive and lasting impact for my constituents. The people of Hall Green have placed their trust in me, and I pledge to represent their interests and concerns to the best of my ability for as long as I remain in this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am afraid that after the next speaker, the time limit will go down to five minutes, but it may have to be reduced quite quickly after that.

Damian Hinds: It is a huge pleasure and privilege to follow our new colleague the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), who spoke with passion about some incredibly important issues. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about National Apprenticeship Week. So many of us have had opportunities to interact with it in Parliament this week, and will continue to do so when we are back in our constituencies in a couple of days. The hon. Gentleman’s  own career is clearly a very impressive back story, and I think it is abundantly obvious to all of us that he will be a great asset to this place.
Climate change is the defining challenge of our age. Although there is still so much to be done, we can take some pride in the fact that this country has been decarbonising faster than comparable countries in the G20. Much the greatest part of that reduction so far has been our success on energy supply; transport is now the sector with the most emissions, and we must therefore prioritise it strongly.
I do not know where the figures in the Labour party’s manifesto come from, although, to be fair, not knowing where the figures come from is hardly a novel experience with today’s Labour party. I challenged the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the shadow Secretary of State, to say what had happened to transport emissions under the Labour Government, but he declined to engage in that conversation. I can tell him that, in fact, they rose in the 10 years after Labour came to power in 1997. At the time of the financial crash of 2007-08 they did fall dramatically, but for all the wrong reasons. Then, when we returned to government and started to rebuild the economy and build up employment, they rose from their level in 2012-13, but not to anywhere near the level to which the Labour Government had taken them in 2007.
It turns out that, although our success on energy is something of a stand-out story, our experience of transport emissions being stubborn and difficult to reduce is rather more common in other countries. The European Environment Agency has added together domestic emissions and international aviation emissions, and has found that between 1990 and 2017—the latest period for which it has figures—the change in transport emissions in the UK was basically the same as that in France, and comparable with what happened in Germany. Only Liechtenstein experienced substantial decreases in its transport emissions, and I am afraid that in the EU28 as a whole they rose by 28%.

Robert Largan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is very generous. Does he agree that one way of reducing transport emissions would be to site train stations in areas to which people can walk rather than drive? As the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), is listening, may I now make a pitch for a new station for Gamesley?

Damian Hinds: My hon. Friend has made a good point about walking. Along with cycling, it is an important part of the picture, as are buses, which so many Members have mentioned today. I hope that the potential for “on demand” buses will benefit constituencies such as mine. We have also talked about rail electrification. As for heavy goods vehicles, there is a strong link with the development of autonomous vehicles. I am pleased that the UK continues to take a strong line internationally on aviation and shipping; it is important to remember that the targets for international aviation and shipping are set internationally.
We have heard more this week—encouragingly, I think —about alternative jet fuel technologies. As was mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and the hon. Member for North  Antrim (Ian Paisley), hydrogen remains potentially a very exciting technology for the future. However, the single most important element in transport is roads, and within that it is cars. In 2018, this country was the second largest European market for ultra low emission cars and the fourth largest for battery electric cars, and a fifth of the battery electric cars sold in Europe were made here. We now have far more charging points—over 22,000—and a penetration of rapid charging points relative to the extent of the road network that compares very favourably with the continent of Europe. Of course, there are many Government subsidies and support programmes that go with that.
We clearly need to do more, however. We had a debate in Westminster Hall the other day in which I talked a lot about how we can try to help consumers through questions about cost and help them to understand that it is important to look at the whole-life cost, particularly now that so many people are getting their vehicle through personal contract hire rather than buying it, even on finance. That comparison should be a lot easier. Clearly, we need to carry on working on the infrastructure network and do more on roaming, interoperability and the visibility of charging points. We also need to ensure that new homes have charging facilities. In my discussion with the Minister in Westminster Hall, I also mentioned that we need to do more on last-mile deliveries, given the huge growth in home shopping. Amazon lockers are great for Amazon, but that is a proprietary system. Can we start to use our post office network as a hub and spoke facility? That would be a good way of reducing the need for last-mile journeys as well as bringing useful footfall and business into post offices.
I will finish now because I know that others want to speak. It is possible to recognise that there is a huge amount to do while also recognising the progress that has been made. People need to know that we in this place understand the gravity of the problem, but also that we are committed, together, to doing what is necessary, and that we can and will do that. It would be so much better if we could return to doing that on the basis of the cross-party consensus that we have had in the past.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. In an attempt to get everybody in, the time limit will go down to four minutes after the next speaker.

Judith Cummins: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I would like to speak about two important transport issues. The first is the campaign to save the Queensbury tunnel in my constituency. The second is the urgent need for more transport investment in the north and the fact that the Government must deliver both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The Queensbury tunnel is a 1.4 mile-long heritage rail tunnel that lies beneath the village of Queensbury, which is situated between Bradford and Halifax. The last train ran through it in 1956, but there is an exciting local plan to transform the tunnel into a walking and  cycling route. Unfortunately, Highways England has mismanaged the tunnel over several years and is now spending millions of pounds to pump out flood water to prepare for the tunnel’s abandonment. There is widespread local and national opposition to this, with more than 6,000 people objecting, and Members from both sides of this House are supporting the campaign to save it. Put simply, the Government have a choice. Either they can spend a significant amount of money to abandon the tunnel, destroying an historical asset with no public benefit, or they can invest for the future by restoring the tunnel and transforming it into the centrepiece of a new walking and cycling route between Bradford and Halifax. I know that the Secretary of State and other Ministers in his Department are aware of the situation, and I ask them once again to commit to visiting the tunnel and, more importantly, to working with me and the local authority to get this situation resolved.
Turning to the broader question of transport in West Yorkshire and across the north, the Government’s own Industrial Strategy Council said this week that
“regional differences in UK productivity are at their highest level for over a century.”
Clearly there is no silver bullet to solve this long-standing problem, but as I have said many times in this place, improving the north’s outdated transport system must be part of the solution. We can begin by getting rid of the either/or choice between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. We all know that this would not be a question if it was being asked about London. The north needs and deserves both projects. All we are asking for is fairness in funding and a rebalancing to ensure that the economy of the north is no longer held back by underinvestment. For my constituents to really benefit from these projects, the Government must commit to Bradford having a city centre stop on Northern Powerhouse Rail.
However, we must go beyond those big-ticket infra- structure projects, and buses must be at the heart of this. Funding cuts, services being withdrawn and fare increases over the past 10 years have let passengers down. They deserve reliable and affordable services; that is the only way we can build a sustainable and balanced economy. The Government can use all the soundbites in the world, but that will not solve regional inequalities. What my constituents and people across the north want and need is fair funding to fix a creaking transport system. The north is a diverse and complex place, but the Government are apparently reluctant or unable to invest in its infrastructure at the same levels as in other parts of the country, which has undoubtedly led to a twin-track economy. That needs to end, and it needs to end now.

Maria Miller: My colleagues on the Department for Transport Front Bench have one of the most difficult problems in government, because not only are they dealing with constituencies that have different transport needs—I only have to compare the needs of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) with those of mine in Basingstoke just a few miles away—and with different rural and suburban transport challenges, but they also have to deal with decarbonisation and with eye-wateringly long lead times when trying make a meaningful difference to this country’s transport mix.
That is the Ministers’ challenge, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire was right to say that we will tackle the problem only with a cross-party approach. I hope everybody welcomes the Government putting an extra £1 billion into the development of next-generation electric vehicles, and their plan to bring forward the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars to 2035. We all see Government policies trickling down into our constituencies. I certainly have in Basingstoke, with the proliferation of charging points, particularly rapid charging points, and the renewal of the bus fleet, with Stagecoach launching 32 new low-emission buses in Basingstoke just before Christmas. So there are signs that some of the policy changes are trickling down, but I will focus on two particular issues that we have not said a great deal about so far in this debate. The people whom we represent would think we were living in a parallel universe if we did not talk about the importance of improving road transport as well as public transport more generally.
If we are to ease congestion on our roads, we have to be prepared to talk about this. Roadside emissions massively contribute not only to overall climate change emissions, but to some of the health problems that many of our constituents experience. I commend the British Lung Foundation and Breathe Easy Basingstoke for their work in raising awareness of the importance of tackling roadside emissions. Basingstoke council has run a “clear the air” campaign to encourage people to cut their engines when in congestion, and Members should consider something similar for their own constituencies. We must also tackle congestion pinch points if we are to tackle roadside emissions. I put on the record my thanks to Basingstoke’s local enterprise partnership for securing around £50 million to improve pinch points around the Brighton Hill roundabout and a whole host of other roundabouts, which are causing so many problems in terms of increasing pollution levels.
The other thing I want to focus on is the importance of investing in south-east England, which Ministers would of course expect me to raise in this debate. The truth is that transport expenditure in the south-east is 15% below the UK average. If we are to rebalance the economy, I urge Ministers to work closely with councils in the south-east to ensure that the region moves from receiving the lowest public sector expenditure per head of population to receiving something nearer the average.

Holly Lynch: We know that asking people to get out of their vehicles and to adopt cleaner methods of transport like rail will be essential if we are to significantly reduce our emissions in the necessary timeframe. We are asking people to make different lifestyle choices, while knowing full well that rail in the north is a toxic combination of unreliable, uncomfortable and expensive, but it is not a big ask.
People in my part of the world are desperate to use trains, as Halifax is almost equidistant between Leeds and Manchester, but we cannot accommodate the demand or provide the service those passengers deserve. Passengers on the Calder Valley line face overcrowding that is uncomfortable at best and dangerous at worst. We are only just starting to see new trains replacing the Pacers, but driver shortages crippled Northern’s ability to operate those services, resulting in delayed and cancelled journeys.  Given how long it takes to train a driver and the almost predatory poaching of Northern’s drivers by larger rail operators, there will not be a quick fix to the problem.
In the summer I spent a day with Northern Rail on the Calder Valley line and at Leeds train station, as the best way to understand where the problems are is to spend time with people at the coalface. It was both fascinating and terrifying to see just how fragmented and dysfunctional rail in the north is. My worry is that without investment in enhancing rail capacity across the north, both at the stations and on the tracks, we are setting up any train operating company or model to fail.
How can we both deliver a rail service that is fit for purpose and shrink carbon emissions from transport? I thank Stephen Waring of the Halifax and District rail action group for his unwavering attention to detail on all things rail-related. HADRAG launched its electric railway charter in May 2018.
The “Northern Sparks” report by the North of England Electrification Task Force was published in 2015, and its purpose was to advise the Government on where they should focus their investment. The report recommended full electrification of the Calder Valley line as its first priority. Sadly, there has been no progress to date. I fear that, for all the anguish about the state of the railways in my part of the world, the current proposals lack any sense of ambition. Even the most common-sense, low-key improvements, which have been identified time and again as essential, take far too long to deliver, if they are delivered at all.
Network Rail planned an upgrade scheme back in 2014 to provide two extra through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly and increased capacity at Oxford Road station. The scheme has been with three different Secretaries of State over five years, and still no progress. Without it, we will continue to see delays and cancellations right across the region, not least on the Calder Valley line.
At Leeds station, which has become another crippling bottleneck, a single new platform is being built to increase capacity, but it is not expected to be finished for at least another year. We need to take a good look at why even the most necessary works have taken so long to deliver and at what can be done to speed up the process to ensure Network Rail projects are a reality for passengers without the years of stalling, red tape and endless reviews we are currently seeing.
Finally, the failings of rail in the north are in no way the responsibility of frontline staff. The vast majority of Northern Rail’s workforce are good people who are doing their best in an incredibly challenging operating environment. I am pleased that the Secretary of State was able to reassure them, when Northern was taken into public ownership, that their jobs are safe and that improvements to staff facilities will be forthcoming.
If we are to meet our targets for decarbonisation and end our contribution to global emissions by 2050, adopting rail in a serious way will be the most obvious route to driving down transport emissions. By investing in rail infrastructure, we can simultaneously unlock the potential of the north. People want to use trains, so we will not have an uphill struggle to change behaviour, as there is clearly already demand. It is up to this Government to rise to the challenge and deliver a rail service that is both good for passengers and good for the planet.

Robert Syms: I think the Government are doing a good job, as they have both reduced emissions and kept the economy rolling. The key policy has to be to create jobs and wealth while having a cleaner environment, so we need to be patted on the back, rather than criticised. We can still make progress, but things are going pretty well as they are.
If we want to make quick progress, we have to invest in roads and pinch points to stop congestion. That is the best way to get a quick economic hit. If we want to make a big difference through public transport, it has to be buses.
HS2 has been part of this debate, and I had some small role in it by chairing the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Select Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) made a good and well-balanced speech. He and many other Members have had a high-speed rail line landed on their constituencies, which creates a number of great difficulties, particularly because of the long timeframe of any such developments. The public think that schemes are produced by people in Whitehall, who know all the answers, the scheme is then in a filing cabinet and they just will not tell them things because they do not want to tell them. The reality is that these things often are designed, with the detail done, well down the line, by which time people have lost faith in the organisation.
In the 20 months that I was chairing the Committee, I came to the view that, on balance, HS2 is a correct thing to do. We have capacity constraints on the west coast main line and if we put a fast line in, which takes all the commuter traffic, it opens up all sorts of opportunities for freight and for various communities. If we do that, we have to see HS2 in terms not of one line, but of the enhancement of the whole rail network. That does not mean we should not be responsive to people affected or that we should not give them fair compensation. A lot more has to be done by HS2 Ltd to interact with members of the public and Members of Parliament affected, but the scheme is a good one, which I still support. It will make a big difference over 20 to 30 years. The good thing about it is that it is a strategic decision, and it will lead to considerable work and a considerable increase in capacity.
Most of the money spent on the scheme will be on the stations and on redevelopment. The key point is that we are spending about £2 billion on Euston—whether that is a good or bad amount of money, the fact is that it will have a big effect in Camden; we are spending money on Old Oak Common, where there is to be a station; we will be spending money on Solihull international, where there will be housing, offices and development; and we will be spending money rebuilding Birmingham Curzon Street, which creates all sorts of opportunities—there will be offices, houses and all sorts of things in the centre of Birmingham and points north. So we should not look at the line purely in terms of the line; we should look at it in terms of the opportunities as we build new stations all the way up it. That is why Stoke-on-Trent petitioned our Committee for the line to go through Stoke-on-Trent. People there see an opportunity for their community. At the moment, the line is going through Crewe, which also sees an opportunity. Although people in the south worry about the line and the impact  on communities, many in the midlands and the north see it as a great opportunity for them. So I suspect that, as the project gets under way, as I hope it will, there will be many arguments between colleagues about why the railway should be going through their communities, not around them, because of the impact it will have in areas of the north.
If we are going to be a country that represents the whole nation, if we are going to join up north and south, if we are going to have redevelopment, we have to build HS2. It is expensive. The payback time on most of these major projects is probably 100 years, rather than 20 or 30 years. Most of the Victorians who developed the railways went bust, but they have left us with a wonderful legacy. I think we should support this project.

Munira Wilson: I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for moving this motion, and I welcome the unanimity across the Chamber, and the growing sense of urgency among the public, on taking tougher action on the climate emergency. The question arises as to whether the political rhetoric matches the reality in terms of policy and action.
So the two areas I wish to focus on briefly are rail and aviation. The motion calls for a cut in rail fares while the Government fix the mess that is the railways. Sorting out that mess has to start with the travesty of a “service”—if we can even call it that—that is South Western Railway. SWR dominates my email inbox and my Twitter feed. Commuters in my constituency are reliant on SWR and they are at their wits’ end, as not a day goes by without problems: lost income; lost working hours; lost time with loved ones; missed medical appointments; and just the general stress of not being able to get a rail service that is not constantly delayed or cancelled. This is just not acceptable. Those who live on the Shepperton line, which serves Hampton, are disproportionately affected, because it is a branch service, which is often cut. On other lines, such as the Teddington loop, there are regularly skips of stations when trains are delayed. Residents are telling me that as a matter of course they are driving part of their journey, which is not helping to cut emissions. All that is coupled with the 27-day strikes we saw in December, where there was no proper compensation, and the financial situation the company finds itself in. As the Secretary of State has said, the situation is unsustainable. I have written to him to ask for a meeting to discuss this matter, and I hope he will get back to me, granting me and other colleagues a meeting to discuss this important issue.
We need to do much more to expand our railways if we are to tempt people out of their cars and away from domestic flights, in order to reduce emissions. So I particularly welcome the motion’s call to bring aviation emissions within the UK’s climate targets. It is therefore somewhat surprising—no, negligent—that neither this Opposition motion, nor anything we have heard from those on the Government Benches today calls for the cancellation of a third runway at Heathrow.
I am disappointed that the amendment that I tabled with Liberal Democrat colleagues has not been selected for debate. Heathrow is the UK’s biggest single source of carbon emissions, and a third runway would increase carbon emissions by up to 9 million tonnes, making achieving net zero significantly harder. Indeed, the Committee  on Climate Change said in 2016 that the construction of a third runway might break the Government’s own climate change laws. How can the Conservatives or Labour be serious about their commitment to tackle climate change unless they join my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me in calling very clearly for a third runway to be cancelled?
Heathrow expansion is projected to increase the number of flights by 300,000 annually. My constituents and many other people across south-west London already have their lives blighted by noise and air pollution, and over half a million people in the area surrounding Heathrow suffer noise levels above World Health Organisation standards. There is air pollution from surface transport, as well as particulates from flights, which go well beyond the airport boundary, despite the claims of Heathrow and, indeed, the Department for Transport. According to some studies, particulates travel up to 16 to 22 km downwind.
The Prime Minister does not even have to keep his promise of lying down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway. He has the power to cancel it at the stroke of a pen, and it is time that Labour came off the fence. Its spokesperson suggested that it might be shifting its policy. Heathrow expansion is bad for climate, bad for our health and wellbeing, and—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I call Jack Brereton.

Jack Brereton: I recently raised the subject of public transport in north Staffordshire in my debate in Westminster Hall because, as our local newspaper, The Sentinel, highlighted, its decline in the Potteries has been faster than in England as a whole. Bus use in north Staffordshire has declined by more than 10% in the past year alone. The decline in public transport and the growth of congestion has seen us breach World Health Organisation limits for air quality. Our bus services are just not good enough.
In north Staffordshire, the journey time taken by a bus can be over double that for a car, sometimes easily treble or worse due to the loss of direct cross-city routes. Locally, Conservatives have plans to fix our poor public transport. Key to the plans for improved public transport in north Staffordshire is the superbus proposal. High-frequency, high-priority bus services would operate on a network of cross-city routes, creating a bus-based urban transport system. Travel costs would be attractive, capped at £3 for a day ticket.
With hard cash already promised from the Transforming Cities fund, we are looking at little short of a revolution in seamless public transport for north Staffordshire. An essential part of the Transforming Cities bid is improving interconnectivity between rail and bus, including at Longton station in my constituency, which will undergo major improvements if we get the full ask in the second round. I hope that we have the full support of Government. I am delighted by the new announcement of funding to reopen stations and rail lines. I am campaigning to reopen Meir station in my constituency, and there is a definite feeling that, as for Stoke-on-Trent itself, the trajectory for rail locally is on the up.
The economy in Stoke-on-Trent and wider north Staffordshire is now one of the fastest growing in the country, and needs comprehensive transport connectivity.  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) for his comments. If HS2 is given the go-ahead, it is essential that it serves Stoke-on-Trent. To remove the Handsacre link that facilitates services to Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield at this point would be of huge detriment to what we have achieved locally.
HS2 should not just be about infrastructure and addressing issues of capacity. It should be about a step-change in those areas that have been left behind historically. If there is anywhere where the Governments agenda of levelling up resonates, it is Stoke-on-Trent. We are developing Stoke-on-Trent’s urban regeneration and inward investment strategies, and have received private investment on the assumption that HS2 will be completed in full. That investment has been made viable in the expectation that HS2 services will stop at Stoke, which has an extremely low-value property market. Our communities suffer from some of the worst levels of multiple deprivation in the country. Opening up our communities to new job prospects will help to improve life chances and living costs.
We have a strong vision for our area that builds on the economic resurgence we have seen under Conservative leadership, both nationally and locally. It is essential that we now deliver for the people who put us into government. The benefits of the Handsacre link, in terms of additional passenger capacity and unlocked freight capacity on the west coast main line, are clear. I urge the Government to back Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire by levelling-up our connectivity and connecting us to HS2. We can be one of the leading contributors to global Britain if our potential is unleashed.
In conclusion, improving transport in Stoke-on-Trent is critical for our economy and for opportunities for local people. Whether it is in respect of local bus or rail, or through HS2, we must benefit from the investment needed to revolutionise local connectivity. Conservative leadership has produced a clear vision, through initiatives such as the Transforming Cities fund and superbus. I hope that we will receive the Department’s and the Government’s support in levelling-up Stoke-on-Trent and ensuring that we can reach our true potential.

Sarah Champion: Recent years have seen a rise in emissions, largely caused by increased traffic growth, which is encouraged by an ever-expanding road building programme. Although the Government are expanding roads, they are not concentrating on safety, which is specifically what I want to focus on.
My constituent Jason Mercer was killed last summer on an all-lane running section of the M1 in South Yorkshire. All-lane running is often branded by Highways England and civil servants as “smart motorways”. It is not. All-lane running means using the hard shoulder as a permanent live traffic lane without fitting the required safety features. Mr Mercer and another motorist were forced to stop, following a minor collision. Without a hard shoulder, they were left vulnerable and exposed in a live lane when one of their vehicles was struck by a lorry, killing both men instantly. The lack of hard shoulder also meant that the men eventually had to be airlifted out because there was no other way for the emergency services to reach them.
The same 16-mile stretch of the M1 that claimed Jason’s life has seen five fatalities in just 10 months. Nationally, the number of fatalities on “smart motorways”  continues to rise at an alarming rate. The Secretary of State recently announced that no further smart motorway schemes would begin until the outcome of the Government review of their safety. He has insisted that smart motorways must be at least as safe as traditional motorways or should not proceed. That is most welcome, but what about the existing death traps?
I want to be extremely clear: all-lane running is fundamentally flawed. It is profoundly unsafe. The existing sections need to be reverted back to roads with a hard shoulder, with immediate effect. If we keep all-lane running open, more people will die, simply to increase motorway capacity on the cheap. That is not hyperbole. Yesterday, The Times detailed a 2012 report by the Highways Agency—the precursor to Highways England—that stated that for the 10 miles of the M1 that borders my constituency, the Highways Agency had decided not to include the planned safety features, as that would increase the cost of the scheme by between £1 million and £2 million—just under 2% of the total budget. There have been five deaths in the past 10 months on that stretch of motorway, for a saving of £1 million to £2 million. Each death, in near identical situations, was because Highways England’s penny-pinching meant that the safety features were never installed.
Highways England knew that rolling out all-lane running would result in deaths. That is not speculation: Jim O’Sullivan, the chief executive of Highways England, told the Transport Committee on 23 October 2019 that that was the case—that by avoiding the safety features, he was likely to see deaths. We have seen deaths. Highways England knew that the all-lane running motorways would kill. Someone, somewhere will have signed off a report that identified the risks and put a figure on the cost of saving lives—a cost that they decided it was not worth spending the money on. I have supported Jason Mercer’s widow, Claire, in her campaign. She is now looking to sue Highways England for corporate manslaughter. It is clear that Highways England knowingly failed in its duty of care to motorists.
A key safety feature that Highways England decided to scrimp on in South Yorkshire was refuges. We originally should have had six on our stretch of road, but we do not have them. Stopping the roll-out will not save lives on my stretch of road and in other constituencies. Will the Minister please, please revert all-lane running back to where it was—roads with a hard shoulder—until the money is found to put the safety features in place? If the Government cannot find the money, the roads should be left as they are, with a hard shoulder.

Suella Braverman: I start by commending the Government’s track record on transport. Spending £100 billion on infrastructure across the nation to improve our roads, railways and broadband is an unprecedented commitment to our national circulation. I am glad that it is this Conservative Government who are confidently leading the way.
I want to raise three issues. First, I am incredibly excited, thanks to the support from the Transforming Cities fund, about the proposals for the new South East Hampshire rapid transit system in the Solent region, where Fareham is located. We need to make it easier,  quicker and more convenient for people to use public transport in the Solent area, and the proposals of Portsmouth City Council, Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight will significantly improve transport links between Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport, Havant and the Isle of Wight.
The new network will eventually serve 14 large development sites, consisting of about 17,000 new homes. It will build on the success of the Eclipse route and provide a new rapid transport corridor, running from Gosport to Fareham bus station, the Delme roundabout and Portchester, and on to Portsmouth and Waterlooville. It will include high-quality, frequent services; a single and simple ticketing system; push notifications with travel information for passengers; bus priority lanes; an enhanced park and ride system; and cleaner, greener low-emission vehicles. I wholeheartedly support the scheme and look forward to its continued progress.
Secondly, on smart motorways, the M27 is the main expressway artery going through my constituency, connecting Portsmouth and Southampton, and several junctions lie in Fareham. Thousands of people in Fareham use that motorway daily. I understand that motorways are dangerous—there is no doubt about that. Many motorists, including me, are often nervous about driving on a motorway, but for the many thousands of people in Fareham who use the M27, which is in the process of being converted into a smart motorway, the prospect of using it is becoming terrifying.
In the past five years, 38 people have been killed on smart motorways, according to a recent “Panorama” programme, and there have been 1,485 near misses on the M25 alone. Many local people in Fareham are concerned about safety. The refuge areas on some smart motorways can be up to 1.5 miles apart, when they should be located every 600 metres. The obvious problem with that is that vehicles do not always break down at a refuge area. The technology for smart motorways is not always responsive or effective. Many people in Fareham are calling for the smart motorway upgrade on the M27 to be scrapped and reversed.
I welcome the Government’s recent announcement of a review of the smart motorway programme nationally. I ask them seriously to question the safety measures in place, and to consider whether a hard shoulder could be reintroduced on parts of the motorway. We need to improve the robustness of the safety measures so that public confidence can be restored.
Finally, junction 10 has been a headache for Fareham for far too long. The junction urgently requires an upgrade into an all-moves junction, so that the infrastructure can enable the strategic development area of Welborne, a proposal for 6,000 new homes in my constituency of Fareham. That will greatly improve economic activity and benefit the region. However, we face a situation that could prove terminal for Welborne. Construction cannot take place without that junction, but we face a £40 million funding gap. I urge the Government to support me and others in Fareham to make Welborne and junction 10 happen.

Virendra Sharma: Transport is the most carbon-emitting sector of the economy, with emissions higher now than they were in 2010. Under the Tories, road traffic growth has soared while support for  public transport has been stunted. We are now one of the most car-dependent countries in the whole of Europe. If we are serious about stopping the climate crisis and creating a future fit for our children and grandchildren, we must do more to promote sustainable forms of transport and active travel.
My constituents in Ealing, Southall are heavily dependent on public transport. I am strongly supportive of the local campaign to enable step-free access at Northfields, Boston Manor and South Ealing stations. The Government and Transport for London must do more to ensure that access can be improved for disabled passengers, which will help build confidence and safeguard independence.
Although those working in the public transport sector have worked tirelessly to improve services—I must declare an interest at this point, as I started my working life as a bus conductor for London Transport, so I am quite familiar with this work—they are hamstrung by the Government and a privatised system that is failing them. Rail fares are up by over 40% since 2010, having risen twice as fast as wages. Over the same period, 3,000 bus routes across the country have been cut or withdrawn, leading to soaring fares and crowded buses. That has had a corrosive effect on our high streets and local communities. It has also reduced the independence of the groups that are particularly reliant on public transport, including older people, women and those with a disability.
The Conservative Government have demonstrably failed in their aim to create and maintain a fit-for-purpose public transport system. Instead of paying lip service to looking after our planet, the Government must reverse their cuts to help reduce our damaging dependency on cars. The case for a substantial programme of investment in public transport is clear.
I was shocked to discover that just 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle. A chronic lack of investment in active travel has led to our becoming one of the worst-performing countries in Europe. Increasing investment and reshaping our cycling and walking strategies will help to improve air quality and arrest the growing public health crisis caused by an inactive lifestyle. Through a programme of infrastructural investment, we will not only reconnect and restore the fabric of our local communities but tackle the climate emergency—the gravest threat that humanity has ever faced.

Derek Thomas: I listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s opening speech, and was curious about his comments regarding investment in buses. Across Cornwall, we have seen the roll-out of a brand new fleet of buses that are easy-access and have audio-visual information, as do many bus stops. In addition, we have had £23.5 million to pilot an even greater public transport system on our roads, with reduced ticket fares and the greatest investment in rail links since the time of Brunel and the introduction of the railway in Cornwall.
There is an appetite across Cornwall to decarbonise transport, and the work under way between Cornish MPs, the Government and Cornwall Council to deliver that is ambitious and welcome, and will continue. We will get more people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, I see no conflict between the road improvements and reducing our carbon footprint. In fact, reducing car congestion by improving roads contributes  to cleaner air, and a reduction in harmful emissions must be an essential object of the Government’s infra- structure programme.
It will come as no surprise to Ministers that I wish to talk about the A30. The single-carriageway A30 between Cambourne and Penzance is the main route in and out of west Cornwall, and it no longer meets the demand, irrespective of the mode of transport or the fuel used to power vehicles—diesel, petrol or electric. Residents are rightly fed up with the congestion, regular accidents and incidents, and poor air quality. Will the Secretary of State and his team look again at the need to commit to a route appraisal for that section of road as part of RIS2?
Let me turn to the need to deliver a resilient, affordable and accessible transport link between the Isles of Scilly and Penzance. The current transport provision is the primary cause of concern for residents on Scilly, who rely on that link to provide the goods and food they need; the most affordable method of transport for passengers, including to and from medical appointments; and the main method of travel for tourism, which accounts for the lion’s share of the local economy. I refer the Secretary of State and his team to current dialogue between the local transport board and his Department regarding the provision of cash to work up a plan to deliver a resilient, affordable and accessible transport link between Scilly and Penzance.
Finally, as more and more people switch to electric cars, will the Minister meet me to consider the implications of that? A vibrant tourism sector such as mine in west Cornwall relies on good transport networks, and public transport is nowhere near to offering a viable alternative for most tourists. Lots of people arrive for their holidays at roughly the same time and on the same days. The implication is that lots of electric vehicles will need to be charged. How we provide the charging capacity for hotels, resorts and camping and caravan sites has not been properly considered, but the challenge is fast approaching.
In summary, consideration of the A30 in RIS2 will be welcome; support to deliver a resilient and affordable transport link to Scilly is vital; and consideration must be given to radically increasing charging capacity and infrastructure, to ensure that Cornwall remains a location of choice to decarbonise, detox and unwind for hard-working families.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the £220 million announced recently by the Government for bus investment. Mine is the only constituency in the whole United Kingdom that has a British-owned bus-building company. That is an essential strategic measure by the Government, especially if they invest in bus building in Northern Ireland. It will affect every constituency in this country, whether in Aberdeen or Cornwall, because it is a bus-building company owned by British entrepreneurs and invested in by British taxpayers. It is also the home of the hydrogen bus. The opportunity is in our hands to make Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK the flagship for hydrogen power as a public transport solution and a world leader in use of that zero-emissions product and world-leading technology.
Hydrogen power is much more advanced and cleaner than battery power. Batteries are a fantastic opportunity for cars and other vehicles, but we must remember that  if we buy a battery car, the entire battery component will need to be replaced in seven years’ time. Of the old battery component, 50% gets recycled, and the other 50% can only go to landfill, increasing a problem that we must still address.
I welcome the £1 billion investment in a battery gigafactory here in the United Kingdom. That is a great opportunity, but it pales into insignificance when we consider that China has monopolised world battery production. Indeed, one factory alone on the Chinese mainland employs 260,000 people. We cannot catch up with world battery production, so our nation needs to lead the way with new technology and solutions such as hydrogen power, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State—and I believe we can.
Jo Bamford, with his Ryse technology and the Bamford Bus Company, and Hugo Spowers, with his Riversimple Rasa hydrogen car, have demonstrated that entrepreneurs are looking at ways of using hydrogen power as a new solution beyond batteries. Batteries are fantastic for lightweight, short-range applications, but hydrogen offers a solution for distance and heavyweight vehicles such as buses, lorries, trains and ferries. Who knows what it could offer in the future for aviation? Members today have talked about low emissions for transport, but hydrogen is a zero-emissions solution, so let us grasp it. What plans do the Government have for hydrogen investment in the United Kingdom? What can they offer to investors in innovative new technologies that will turn waste into energy?
I support the third runway at Heathrow, which is a brilliant opportunity for investment and aviation. Some 51% of people who fly from Northern Ireland to England are coming here to do business. We need a third runway because Heathrow has reached capacity. We have to remember that 95% of the global economy lies within reach of a single direct flight from Heathrow. Heathrow has facilitated £118 billion of trade outside the EU in the last 12 months alone. It is a wonderful airport, and it must—

Munira Wilson: So we should destroy our planet?

Ian Paisley Jnr: No, we are not destroying our planet; don’t be silly. Accelerating investment in sustainable alternative fuels will only happen if we increase air passenger travel.

Ruth Cadbury: We know full well the challenges of and the solutions to climate change, and we all know just how worried our constituents are about this crisis. Only this morning, at Smallberry Green Primary School in Isleworth, I got asked about climate change not just by a year 5 student, but by a year 2 student.
Transport is the largest sector for emissions, and it is the sector cutting emissions the least. Within transport, the sector with the fastest growing emissions is aviation. During the time that emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by 40%, aviation emissions have more than doubled. Passenger numbers are set to increase by 70%, and that growth is not business travel. Over half of the British population do not fly at all in any given year, but the highest 15% of the UK population by income  are taking over 70% of all our flights. The growth is in outbound leisure travel, with UK-based tourists in the top income bands taking their holiday money away from the UK three or more times a year, including from places such as those represented by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). That is money that many of those in our beautiful places would be delighted to see spent here.
The aviation industry mentions magical solutions that will allow it to continue with a business-as-usual approach in a carbon-constrained world, but electric planes—particularly for short haul and long haul—will not be online until 2050 at the absolute earliest. There is no current industry development for these longer flights. For example, long-haul planes make up 70% of UK air travel, yet there is no current development for electric planes going on in those areas.
Yesterday, the chief executive of Heathrow airport was on the radio talking about sustainable fuels for aviation, but we know that a rise in biofuels will only lead to more deforestation. This means more habitats destroyed, more communities displaced and more carbon emissions. Carbon offsetting by planting trees only removes, years from now, the carbon emitted today. It is not an alternative to cutting emissions in the first place.
Obviously, the chief executive of Heathrow Airport Ltd dearly wants a third runway, but even Department for Transport figures—from work done in the run-up to the vote in this place in 2018—show that the additional passengers using runway 3 will almost all be UK-based passengers taking leisure flights overseas. Expansion will draw long-haul flights away from regional airports, thus impacting on their direct international connections. Furthermore, expanding Heathrow will mean an extra 6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.
I am glad that the Labour Front-Bench team led by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) concluded in June 2018 that Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our climate change obligations and that Labour would not authorise Heathrow expansion or any other plans that jeopardise those climate targets. The solution we should be promoting—the only carbon-saving solution for aviation that will make a difference before 2050, when electric planes come online—is to address the growth in demand. We need to stop runway 3 at Heathrow, address the pricing disparity between rail and flying, and implement a frequent flyer levy to replace air passenger duty.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sorry, but I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Justin Madders: Some 78% of people in Ellesmere Port and Neston use private motor transport to get to work, compared with a national average of 63%. Perhaps in a constituency known for building cars that is not so much of a surprise, but I think it is more a reflection of the poor public transport links we have. It seems that for much of the last decade we have, every couple of months, faced a battle to save bus services that are already inadequate. Sometimes we persuade the bus company to keep the route and sometimes it will retain the service with a  slightly different route, but sometimes we lose the route altogether. We then see people who rely on a bus to get to work, to care for their family or to access medical appointments left high and dry, usually at just a few weeks’ notice.
We need to take back control of the bus network. We need a locally directed bus network designed to meet the needs of the local community, so that we are no longer at the mercy of commercial considerations and so that people, no matter where they live, are never too far away from a regular, reliable bus service. We can spend billions of pounds on shaving 20 minutes off the journey time from Crewe to London, but we still cannot guarantee the most basic bus service for many of our citizens. How are people supposed to be able to get work in certain places if they just cannot get there? How is one of the biggest employers in my constituency, Cheshire Oaks, expected to maximise the number of local young people it employs if they cannot get home from work after six o’clock?
This picture is repeated up and down the country; no wonder so many young people feel they have no choice but to leave their home town and venture into the city. It is no wonder that we have a chronic loneliness and isolation problem when so many older people cannot get anywhere because the bus service has been cut.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s decision on HS2 shortly. If it goes ahead, I have supreme confidence that it will eventually be delivered over budget and late; I have considerably less confidence in whether it will bring any benefit to the north, and my constituency specifically. We have a real chance of delivering real benefits to the north through HS2 if the project is accompanied by a meaningful rail investment programme across the whole of the north, alongside a concerted effort to attract new businesses to the north; otherwise, advertising the benefits of getting to London quicker will probably encourage more businesses to locate in London than the other way around.
My constituency is a perfect example of why rail investment must be matched pound for pound in the north. If I want to travel the 30 miles from Ellesmere Port to Crewe by rail, I have to get on three separate trains and the journey will take around an hour and a half. It will probably end up taking longer than the whole of the rest of the journey from Crewe to London.
Finally, in the time I have left I want to say a few words about the Mersey Gateway tolls. I make no apologies for raising this subject again because the same basic unfairness of that system is still there. We have repeatedly heard from Ministers about how tolls being removed can improve an area’s economic performance, such as in south Wales and Scotland, and there are no toll crossings in Northern Ireland and none in London either. Some 90% of road crossings are toll-free except in Merseyside. That needs to end.

Janet Daby: Aviation emissions in the UK have more than doubled since 1990. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow airport and according to the Department for Transport projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. While there is an economic argument for  expanding Heathrow airport, there are clear legitimate concerns about the environmental impact and a need to reform the aviation sector.
In Lewisham East, residents have been, and are, suffering from concentrated flight paths from City and Heathrow airports. Rebecca, who represents many constituents, wrote to me to say:
“We strongly oppose City airport’s plan to increase flights by 45% and to abolish the 24 hour no flying rule at the weekend.”
She was woken at 5 am by a low-flying City airport flight. The Government must conduct a review of the impact of concentrated flight paths across Lewisham East and south London that fully assesses inequalities. Our poorer and more diverse areas have been subjected more to overhead flights.
Jessica, another constituent, says:
“I have noticed a definite increase in large aircraft frequency and consequent noise. Obviously, this concerns me for daily disturbance and environmental reasons.”
So constituents are writing to me expressing their concerns and worries.
Another constituent was diagnosed as suffering from a low-frequency noise:
“It is an extremely depressing, debilitating and painful condition”,
she said to me.
Last summer, I held a public meeting on this issue. The room was filled with residents who had come together to discuss this concern. The fact that flight paths from City and Heathrow airports are currently overlapping means planes arriving at City airport must fly lower and for longer. This has created corridors of noise that reach unacceptable levels and increase emissions, which are affecting my community.
Air waves, and sound and noise from flying aircraft need to be regulated. The proposals in City airport’s draft masterplan to lift the restrictions on flights in the evening and at weekends to significantly increase the number of flights are unacceptable and would mean that residents had no respite from excess noise, which would have a detrimental effect on their wellbeing.
According to the World Health Organisation, noise is the second largest environmental cause of health problems, just after the impact of air quality. My constituents cannot tolerate the present flight paths and certainly cannot tolerate increases to their flight paths caused by City airport or Heathrow.
I call on the Government to take action to significantly reduce aviation emissions, to review the impact of concentrated flights across Lewisham East and south London, to conduct an equalities impact assessment, and to introduce regulation to prohibit sound waves from exceeding acceptable world health limits.

Fleur Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak on this very important issue for residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, transport issues, social justice and climate action go hand in hand. My constituents know this only too well. I would like to outline some of the major transport issues they are facing, which are interlinked.
First, on Heathrow airport expansion, a third runway will stop us being able to reach our carbon emissions reduction target. It will be a disaster for my constituents  in Putney and, as other hon. Members have said, across south-west London. Their quality of life and health will be blighted: some 260,000 extra flights a year deliberately routed over our green spaces, dumping carbon and particulates on important habitats such as Putney Heath as well as on residents; an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from air travel by 9 million tonnes a year; and 2.2 million people impacted by increases in aircraft noise.
For my constituents in Putney, those effects will be acutely felt. They will not have any daytime respite at all from aircraft noise on half of all days when planes are operating in a westerly direction. We will have planes flying overhead almost continually for approximately three days out of four. This will put an unbearable strain on the sleeping patterns and the health and wellbeing of my constituents. That is not to mention the inevitable increase in air pollution that a third runway and expansion will bring. Putney already suffers from some of the worst air toxicity levels in London. This is the last thing we need. In light of our legally binding climate change targets and the declaration of a climate emergency, I request that the Minister reviews the national policy statement and cancels the expansion plans.
Secondly, South Western Railway is causing endless misery for my constituents who rely on that service to commute and to get around. For two years, there have been frequent delays, cancellations and dangerously overcrowded services. I am glad the Transport Secretary has recognised the problem. I hope he will meet me soon to talk about next steps.
Delays on the District line have been terrible. The modernisation project must go on, but the upgrade has to be faster and we need a lift at East Putney station. The Alton estate in Roehampton is about to undergo a major regeneration, but that will work only if transport plans come in behind it. Otherwise, people will not be able to get to work and it will fail. Transport is not joining up with this regeneration, and I ask the Minister to look at the situation.
Finally, on air pollution, we need far more infrastructure for cycling. There just has not been enough in the whole of Wandsworth. I commend the work of Little Ninja and the Putney Society on this issue. Far more needs to be done.
In conclusion, my constituents will not accept any more half measures, half-hearted apologies or half-baked excuses on transport from either service providers or the Government.

Mike Kane: When His Excellency the President of China Xi Jinping visited my constituency in 2015, he spoke eloquently about 30 years of the twinning arrangement between Manchester and Wuhan. I want to say on the record that the prayers of Manchester are with the people of Wuhan as they try to contain the coronavirus.
Pope Francis said, five years ago in his seminal encyclical “Laudato Si’”, that we should hear the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor. Economic productivity goes hand in hand with social justice, and I think that that is the essence of the debate. I just want to touch, in the few minutes I have, on how it impacts on my constituency.
First, 28 million passengers go through Manchester Airport—some might say that I have the most visited constituency in the north of England—but we need a more sustainable aviation industry. HS2 will reduce journey times from two hours, 24 minutes from my constituency to London to 59 minutes. That is an incredible amount, but it is not about the speed; it is about releasing capacity on the west coast main line. Tens of millions of freight trucks could be taken off the road and on to our railways. Metrolink needs to be expanded through my constituency. We need the bid that has gone in to the Government—for Metrolink to be able to go from the current stop at Manchester Airport to the new terminal, and eventually to loop right around my constituency—to succeed,. because we know that is a green way to travel.
I have some sympathy for Northern Rail. The Government did invest in the Ordsall Chord and connect Piccadilly railway station to Victoria railway station, but we are still waiting for a decision on platforms 15 and 16. There is a bottleneck across the north, and whoever is operating rail in the north will still have to deal with that bottleneck.
I am pleased with Stagecoach in my constituency, at Sharston bus depot. It has committed to making every bus going through my constituency electric in the next few years. We need the national infrastructure fund to help Mayor Burnham and Chris Boardman, our excellent cycling and walking commissioner, with our network in Manchester—£43 billion needs to be spent on cities outside London.
Finally, air quality has been mentioned. Up to 1,200 people die annually in Greater Manchester because we have the poorest air quality in the country. That has to change by having a joined-up transport system with lower emissions. We need to level up outside the south-east.

Matt Rodda: It is an honour to close today’s debate. There can be no doubt that tackling the climate change emergency is the most pressing problem facing our country and, indeed, the wider world. Today’s debate has reflected both the urgency and the overriding importance of that issue, and I want to highlight a series of contributions from colleagues across the House.
Some powerful speeches were made highlighting the rising emissions from transport, particularly from road transport, and important points were made about the pressing need to end our addiction to car use, with calls for more investment in public transport, walking and cycling. I also point out the need to go further and reduce the need to drive in the first place by encouraging new development that puts housing near places where people work and where public transport is easily accessible.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) was very thoughtful. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) rightly raised the issue of investment in the north of England, and I found the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) interesting in highlighting the importance of high-speed rail, even if he has some issues with HS2.
Other notable contributions were made by a range of speakers, including a number who referenced the need for much greater investment in rail. My hon. Friends  the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the hon. Members for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) all mentioned the importance of rail investment across the country. There was also an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) calling for more investment in buses. Many other contributions were made.
Above all, I remind the House of the key points that were made the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who called for urgent action by the Government. He said rightly that the challenge is no longer abstract; it is now a very real and devastating reality. Those points were all important, and I believe that the contributions today reflected Members’ deep concerns about the climate emergency. Sincere views are held across the House about the enormous challenge that we now face.
It is interesting that there is also an emerging consensus in the House, among the public and among the business community about the scale of the issue and the need for an urgent response. What is needed now, above all, is a plan for determined action. The Government have a working majority, and it is clearly the duty of Ministers to address this challenge as a matter of urgency. However, the question facing the House is whether the Government have the political will to rise to the challenge, or whether Ministers will continue to fail to acknowledge the scale of the task that we face. As my hon. Friend said, so far the record is clear, and I am afraid that it is one of the Government failing to step up to the challenge.
The coalition Government and the last two Conservative Administrations have presided over rising carbon dioxide emissions from transport, due largely to increased pollution from road vehicles. At the same time, rail fares have increased dramatically, hundreds of bus services have been cut, and walking and cycling growth is flatlining, with the Government missing their targets to increase active travel.
The failure to tackle rising emissions at a time of climate crisis is simply unacceptable. What is needed now is a completely and utterly different approach, and it is clear from the progress being made by other countries, the Labour Mayors of our great cities and the Welsh Government that investment in public transport and in walking and cycling works and delivers real and tangible change and benefits. Investing to cut carbon dioxide emissions is not only desirable, but absolutely essential.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points. I urge him to press his colleagues in the Treasury for the necessary resources and investment and for real incentives for behaviour change—both for drivers to scrap polluting vehicles and to encourage far greater use of public transport and far more walking and cycling.

George Freeman: It is a great pleasure to close this debate on transport emissions and decarbonisation as the Government’s first ever Minister for the decarbonisation of transport. I want to begin, however, by saying that while we have been in this debate there has been an accident in Turkey. A passenger plane has skidded off a runway and there are reports of injuries. I know the whole House’s thoughts will be with those affected.
There have been many valuable contributions this afternoon. I cannot go through them all in the limited time available, but I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) on his maiden speech. He talked powerfully about Kashmir and apprenticeships. I know more about one than the other, although I hitch- hiked through Kashmir 30 years ago and I recognise the beauty of the place he described. I also want to highlight the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and to congratulate him on becoming Chair of the Transport Committee, and the speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been running a powerful campaign on all-lane running on the M1, on which one of her constituents was killed. I thank her for the comments she made the other day in the Westminster Hall debate, which the Secretary State and I are taking very seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the former Secretary of State for Education, spoke powerfully about the importance of pursuing the electrification and decarbonisation agenda in a way that goes with the grain of everyday travel to work, families and the realities of getting around our country, particularly in the last mile.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised the important issue of Heathrow. Whatever happens at Heathrow, we are committed to making sure that it does not damage our commitment to our climate change obligations. In response to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the SNP spokesman, I should make it clear that the UK Government want to support Scotland in its decarbonisation agenda. That is one reason why I am looking at hydrogen, which is a particular strength in the Scottish economy.
As Minister for the decarbonisation of transport, my brief, which has been worked through with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, is to dramatically accelerate the pace of progress on decarbonisation in transport, but I also look after disconnection and digitalisation. The two are connected. We must do more to tackle the disconnection of people and places left behind, the clusters held back, and the disconnection between agencies, not least those with responsibility for decarbonisation. The digitalisation of our transport networks—particularly the railways, but also the buses—can play a huge part in decarbonising our transport system and making it easier for passengers to make that modal shift.
The Prime Minister yesterday set out our groundbreaking commitment to be the first nation to ban diesel and hybrid cars after 2035, as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. I am surprised we have not had more of a response and welcome for that from Opposition Members. They asked us to do it, and we have done it. It is a key step in tackling transport emissions and builds on our £1.5 billion investment in ultra low emission vehicles and our £400 million investment in charging infrastructure announced since the new Prime Minister and the Government took office.
We are looking across all modes of transport. On aviation, we have already committed to producing an aviation strategy looking to 2050 and beyond. We have made it clear that Heathrow expansion must meet strict criteria on air quality and noise and will not be allowed to materially affect the Government’s ability to meet our climate change obligations. On shipping, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Maritime Minister for launching our first clean maritime plan. The UK is one  of the first countries to publish a domestic strategy to reduce shipping emissions—invisible to many but none the less hugely significant globally, particularly for this maritime nation. This followed the UK’s crucial role in the agreement of the International Maritime Organisation’s first strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. On rail, we have committed to getting rid of all diesel trains on the rail network by 2040, and we are looking at electrification and at hydrogen trains in the peripheral areas not likely to be electrified.
We will, however, go much further and faster than even this. I am clear that we want to make Brexit the moment when we step up to our global responsibilities to lead in the decarbonisation of transport and the growth of a green economy. That is why I am working with the Secretary of State on our first ever comprehensive transport decarbonisation plan, which Opposition Members might be interested to hear about, and which we will publish shortly. It will set out a groundbreaking approach to all modes, explaining how road, rail, shipping and aviation can reach net zero.
We will take a place-based approach, looking at the dirtiest motorway junctions, railway stations, ports and airports, and ensuring that everyone has a target that can be met. We want to establish the first ever digital metric for emissions per passenger per kilometre, and, using that metric, to drive “red, amber, green” digital mapping of emissions around the country. We are significantly increasing our research and development science budget, particularly in relation to hydrogen, biofuels and electric planes, to ensure that we have the technology that will help us in carbon budgets 5 and 6.
I also want to highlight the power of data and digital, which has traditionally been overlooked in this sector, but which I believe has a powerful role to play in harnessing our digital economy to ensure that we map and measure properly and empower consumers, through their phones and their local communities, to make the choices that will contribute to the driving down of emissions. I ask Members to imagine their Citymapper as a green carbon route-mapper, giving them points and allowing them to make informed choices about routes and how they can reduce carbon emissions. We can lead the digitalisation, as well as the place-based choices, that will drive modal shift.
I understand that behavioural change alone is not enough, which is why we are significantly increasing our R&D and technology spending. I am launching the first ever Department of Transport research strategy, and a list of priorities for the budget period is being prepared at this moment. We shall be considering hydrogen, biofuels and electric planes.
My aim in this decarb plan is to ensure that this country leads in both the policies and the science and technology to drive the decarbonisation of transport. Our new future transport strategy sets out a comprehensive plan to do two key things. The first is to make the UK a world leader in the testing, development and financing of innovation in transport, because it is an industrial strategy for global UK leadership. Secondly, it is a strategy for local, healthy, place-based neighbourhood choice to make it easier for households, families, communities and councils to drive the modal shift that we need. We believe that by doing both, we can get on track to hit carbon budgets 5 and 6.
I know that time is short: I have no more than 40 seconds left. Let me end by saying this. A number of colleagues have spoken about cycling, and we have committed £2.5 billion in this investment round and in this Parliament to double it. We have invested a further £200 million in buses, we have a £2 billion programme for decarbonisation, and there is £400 million for electric vehicle charging and another £400 million for hydrogen.
We are acting fast to repair decades of neglect. It is all very well for Opposition Members to laugh, but I do not remember their being able to set out such a record after 13 years in office. We have a grip on this issue. In view of the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow later this year, COP26, let me make very clear that this Government get it. We are also absolutely committed to making clear at that conference that we will make Brexit the moment at which we inspire a new generation, lead globally, and do that most Conservative thing of all, which is to leave our environment in a better condition than the one in which we found it.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 311.
Question accordingly negatived.

Nuclear Energy Policy: Climate Change

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Iain Stewart.)

Virginia Crosbie: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to introduce this important debate tonight.
Our country’s ever-increasing energy requirements and, more importantly, how those requirements are met have long been the source of much debate under Governments of all political colours. Hitting the right energy mix is the aim of all high-consumption countries around the world but, of course, it is easier said than done.
Never has the energy mix been more evident than in my constituency of Ynys Môn in north Wales. Wave and solar energy specialists on Ynys Môn are leading the way in their respective fields, and some of the first offshore wind prototypes were tested on the island. However, this is only part of the all-important energy mix.
New nuclear power has the capability to meet rising demand, and this Conservative Government can be incredibly proud that the UK is the first major economy to pass a net zero emissions law with a carbon target of net zero by 2050. Wylfa Newydd on Ynys Môn is critical to achieving that target for a number of reasons, and I will touch on only a few of the most salient points tonight.
First, there is rising demand for electricity, and the Committee on Climate Change predicts that demand to double. The electricity we produce cannot be any electricity: it must come from clean sources and, of course, it must be dependable. This report introduces the idea of firm power—electricity generation that can be relied on to supply demand at all times. We cannot ignore our population’s ever-increasing requirement for electricity as we decarbonise heat and transport.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on a vital subject and on her wonderful introduction. Does she agree that, as with all things in life, a balance must be struck and that we must balance the provision of energy with a safe and secure foundation for that provision? Does she also agree that nuclear power, which I support, is not the answer to all our needs but is currently necessary and that, while we consider viable replacements for nuclear energy, we must take care of our nuclear plants to the highest safety standards?

Virginia Crosbie: This reactor technology is proven and has already been delivered four times. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this technology must be proven to be safe.
Secondly, nuclear power fits in with decarbonisation both here and in the world at large. Nuclear energy has been powering UK homes since 1956, doing the heavy lifting of decarbonisation long before global warming was near the political agenda. According to the “Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2019” published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, nuclear power provides over 45% of our domestically generated clean power. Over the next decade,  however, all but one of our current fleet is due to come offline. If that capacity is not replaced with nuclear, our emissions will go up.
Countries like Germany have tried to decarbonise by shutting down their nuclear power stations and opening open-cast lignite coal mines—the dirtiest form of coal possible—to keep the lights on when their wind and solar fleet is not generating enough electricity. Their long-term solution is to pipe in gas from Russia, but that is still a polluting fossil fuel. The Nord Stream 2 project risks Germany becoming too dependent on gas from Russia, at a time when the world’s political instabilities risk supply cut-off. This would not be an appropriate course of action for us to take.
If we were to exclude nuclear in the UK, we would need to install 478 GW of capacity, compared with between just 70 GW and 80 GW in a balanced mix. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded in 2018 that not only is it more difficult to reach net zero without nuclear, but it is significantly more expensive.
Lastly, but most importantly, for my constituents of Ynys Môn the economic benefits are clear. As a Government, we promised our voters in areas such as mine that they would not be forgotten any longer.

Katherine Fletcher: I wish to emphasise the point about economic benefits. An arc goes from Anglesey all the way up to Sellafield, with South Ribble and Mr Speaker’s own patch of Chorley very much at the heart of it. With the number of high-skilled, technical, brilliant engineers within that arc, it is not unusual for someone to live in Warrington and work in Anglesey one day, at Sellafield the next and at BAE Systems in Barrow the next. Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal is economically vital for the north of Wales and the north-west of England?

Virginia Crosbie: I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear point about the nuclear arc and how this will benefit so many more people than just the people on Ynys Môn; it will benefit people throughout Wales. This nuclear arc is going to be very important.

Mike Hill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Virginia Crosbie: If I may, I will continue. As I was saying, my constituents deserve jobs, skilled employment and investment to reduce dependency on the instability of seasonal tourism. Many of them tell me that they are worried about the future of the Welsh language, as our young people leave the island for cities across Wales and the north of England to gain meaningful employment. Once operational, Wylfa will create up to 850 permanent jobs, with 8,500 at the peak of construction, many of which would be highly skilled roles and training opportunities. We simply must turn the employment situation around on Anglesey and demonstrate that this Government are on the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life. There would also be thousands more jobs in the supply chain beyond the island in north Wales. Wylfa would undoubtedly see a multi-billion-pound investment into the region.

Charlotte Nichols: The hon. Lady is making some salient points about the importance of nuclear energy. Contracts from Hinkley Point C to suppliers in my constituency are worth more  than £61 million, so many of my constituents will be keenly awaiting the energy White Paper to see what commitments are made to new nuclear projects that could bring even greater benefits locally. Does she agree that the Government should confirm the date on which this White Paper will be released, in order to give the 3,500 people employed in the civil nuclear industry in my constituency certainty over their futures?

Virginia Crosbie: I also thank all the people who work so hard at Sellafield on nuclear research. One of my asks of the Minister will indeed be about the timescale for our getting the White Paper.
If this project does not go ahead, these talented people will inevitably look further afield for work. We cannot and must not allow north Wales to lose out. Even so, it is not the north alone that would lose out; estimates put the wider benefit to Wales as a whole at about £5.7 billion. Moreover, after the plant begins to generate electricity, it is estimated that the contribution could be nearly £87 million in gross value added each year of its operation. As a scientist, I understand that these are not insignificant numbers. But even if we all agree that, as part of the energy mix, nuclear power is the way forward, why Wylfa? Why Ynys Môn? It is because Wylfa is hands down the best nuclear new build site in the UK. The local community on the island understand nuclear energy, having seen at first hand the benefits of the original Magnox station, and there is a large amount of support for the project locally. It is encouraging that despite many major political differences, there is cross-party support for this project, with senior figures from both Labour and Plaid Cymru backing the development.
The Wylfa project is all but ready to progress into construction. It is based on proven reactor technology, which has been delivered four times—on time and on budget in Japan—as elements of the design are based on modular construction. The advanced boiling water reactor has already been put through the UK nuclear regulator’s generic design assessment, a process which took nearly five years, and the development consent order is expecting a decision from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the end of March this year. If the process had to be restarted with a different developer, we are looking at the very least at another four to five years of delay. So much of the groundwork has been done. Why would we waste this opportunity? Why would we waste more time?
Financing the project through a model such as the regulated asset base will ensure that the project is funded and started as soon as possible. I would like to know when the Government intend to respond to the consultation responses on adopting such a financing model for new nuclear.

Mike Hill: I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for advanced modular reactor and small modular reactor provision, particularly from the perspective of Hartlepool and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear. The important point is the money that is generated for the local economy. In Hartlepool, it is roughly £10 million for the local economy and 500 jobs. Does she agree that companies such as EDF that run our nuclear power stations are investing wisely in green alternative provision, so nuclear is effectively a bridge to that future?

Virginia Crosbie: Absolutely. This is a balanced approach to our energy. We need that so that we can achieve the 2050 target. Have the Government considered any robust alternatives to the RAB financing model? Will the Minister say when the Government will publish the energy White Paper?
In conclusion, this project is the only way forward to ensure that we can meet our 2050 target on decarbonisation. It renews the UK’s infrastructure, drives economic growth in the regions, boosts our manufacturing and construction sectors, and strengthens our links with key tier 1 non-EU partners—a vital source of investment and collaboration now that we have left the European Union. Most importantly, this Government and our message are all about people—people who put their trust in this Government to deliver. Our Prime Minister promised
“Colossal new investments in infrastructure, in science, using our incredible technological advantages to make this country the cleanest, greenest on earth with the most far-reaching environmental programme.”
People and their priorities were at the heart of our successful election to government. Now we must deliver across the UK, particularly to constituencies such as mine, Ynys Môn. Let us unite this country, let us spread opportunity to every corner of the UK, with superb education, superb infrastructure, and technology. It is the people of Ynys Môn who will benefit most from Wylfa. Together we can realise the potential of Anglesey as the “Energy Island” and we can share in the opportunity and ambition to succeed in life that many neighbouring areas have come to expect as a given. I therefore urge the Government and the Minister not to forget about people when making the decision about the future of nuclear power and Wylfa Newydd specifically. The people of Ynys Môn and north Wales are looking to us to change their lives and give them hope and opportunity. In the words of the Prime Minister the day after the election:
“Those people who voted for us want change. We cannot—must not—let them down.”

Nadhim Zahawi: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) not only on securing this evening’s debate, but on her fantastic recent election result. I thank colleagues who have made interventions—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and the hon. Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Hartlepool (Mike Hill). When the Cabinet went to Sunderland, the Prime Minister met an apprentice from Hartlepool. With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, it is not just about apprentices; it is about skilled workers across the country, including in the north-west arc, dating all the way back, Mr Speaker, to 1956.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I was born.

Nadhim Zahawi: Quite right, Sir. It has been over three decades since Ynys Môn elected a Conservative Member of Parliament and I look forward to working with her over the coming years to ensure that this Government deliver for the people of her constituency and across the entire region of north Wales.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the important issue of nuclear energy, and I am eager to speak to her and the House this evening about the huge number of benefits that the UK expects to receive as a result of the Government’s commitment to the sector. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for her presence. She, too, takes an eager interest in nuclear power, not only because of her constituency and her constituents’ needs, but for the wellbeing of the energy sector nationally.
New nuclear is likely to have a significant role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. In September 2016, we gave the go-ahead to the first new nuclear power station in a generation, at Hinkley Point C; and in June 2018 we committed £200 million through our landmark nuclear sector deal, which includes millions of pounds for advanced nuclear technologies. The Government understand the important role that nuclear plays, and will continue to play, in our economy. That role includes ensuring that local and national benefits are realised, whether through increased employment opportunities or improvements in skills.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn reminded us, on 27 June 2019 the UK Government set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the whole UK economy by 2050. We were the first major economy in the world—followed by France and the rest of the EU—to legislate for net zero, and we want to deliver our commitments in a way that maximises the economic benefits of the transition to net zero. Between 1990 and 2017, we reduced emissions by more than 40% while at the same time growing our economy by more than two thirds, decarbonising our economy faster than any other G20 country. The net zero target requires us to build on that progress by transforming the whole of our economy and, of course, changing the culture in our society—our homes, our transport, our businesses and how we generate and use energy.
I thank my hon. Friend for talking about the energy White Paper. It will form a key part of our journey to net zero. To answer her question about its publication date, I can inform her that the Secretary of State has stated that she intends to publish the energy White Paper in the first quarter of this year. The White Paper will set out a clear, decisive strategy—a strategic approach to decarbonising energy, driving up clean growth opportunities and demonstrating international leadership in the build-up to COP26 at the end of the year. I am sure we are all delighted that COP26 is to be hosted in the great Scottish city of Glasgow.
Net zero is not just good for the environment; it is good business. It is already abundantly clear, however, that a substantial increase in low-carbon generation will be needed to reach net zero by 2050. Nuclear will have an important role to play in the UK’s future energy mix, providing firm low-carbon power and complementing variable renewable generation. Britain was the world’s first civil nuclear nation, and nuclear energy has powered homes and businesses in this country for more than 60 years. There are currently 15 nuclear reactors operating at eight sites throughout the UK, and they provide a fifth of our electricity. In 2016, the Government gave the go-ahead for the first new nuclear power station in a generation, at Hinkley Point C in Somerset. Once  operational, Hinkley will provide 3.2 GW of secure, low-carbon electricity for around 60 years, meeting an estimated 7% of the UK’s current electricity requirements. To put that another way, it will power nearly 6 million British homes—twice as many homes as there are in London.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Hinkley site, and it was incredible to see the sheer scale of the endeavour that is being undertaken. There has been significant progress at the site; in December, the developer announced that all key milestones for 2019 had been achieved. Those included the successful delivery of J-zero for the first reactor, which marked the point at which the foundations for unit 1 were complete and the above-ground work could commence. They also included the first big lift for Big Carl—who I met—the world’s largest land-based crane, which towers 250 metres over the site. In one single lift, it can lift the equivalent weight of 5,000 shire horses, or of two A380s. It is a remarkable piece of engineering. On 18 December, engineers at Hinkley worked through the night to lift a 170 tonne part of the reactor’s steel containment liner into place, and it was fantastic to see the results at first hand.
During its construction and operation, Hinkley Point C will provide the local region, as well as the entirety of the UK, with economic benefits. In July 2018, the Government published “Hinkley Point C: wider benefits realisation plan”. The plan, produced with support from EDF Energy, sets out how the wider benefits of the project will be delivered. For example, Hinkley Point C is expected to provide more than 25,000 new employment opportunities and up to 64% of the value of construction contracts to UK-registered companies.

Jim Shannon: During the previous Parliament, I met some of the people involved in the project. They told me that all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would benefit from those jobs. Can the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland will gain from the construction of the project?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am happy to write back to him on how much of the benefit has gone to businesses in Northern Ireland.
A total of almost £4 billion in today’s money will go into the regional economy over the lifetime of the project, composed of about £1.5 billion during construction and about £2.4 billion during operations.

Katherine Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that we should not only seek to replicate established technologies, but use the new nuclear base-load as an opportunity to innovate and become a world leader in the sector?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right and I hope to address that point in a few moments.
EDF has informed us that Wales is already benefiting from work at the project; more than 1,000 Welsh residents have worked on it so far. Twenty-one apprentices who were previously employed at Wylfa are now working at Hinkley Point C, and more than 100 Welsh companies are working on the project, with contracts totalling more than £150 million going their way. The project is also sourcing more than 200,000 tonnes of Welsh steel  from Express Reinforcements in Neath and large components from Vessco Engineering in Bridgend. I hope those examples go some way to showing that this Government recognise and value the highly skilled nuclear workforce and established supply chain that Wales offers.
I understand, however, that talking about successes in Somerset does not diminish the disappointment that north Wales felt upon hearing about the suspension of Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn that we worked extremely hard during negotiations to find a deal that was right for everyone, with Government ready to contribute significant investment.
We were clear from the outset that any deal that was made would represent value for money, and be the right one for taxpayers and consumers. Ultimately, we were unable to reach such a deal and Hitachi took the commercial decision to suspend the project. However, the Wylfa site remains a potential location for new nuclear development, and Hitachi has stated that it is keen to discuss future options for the site with us, based on alternative funding models.
The Government are committed to looking at alternative funding models that could improve the value for money and reduce the cost of capital of new nuclear projects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn correctly noted, we recently consulted on a regulated asset base funding model as a potential new option that could attract private sector capital at a lower cost to consumers. The consultation closed on 14 October 2019, and we are currently considering the feedback to inform the best approach to the financing of future nuclear projects.
Ynys Môn will always be the energy island, and this Government are proud of the expertise and skills that north Wales brings to the UK’s civil nuclear sector. In September 2019, we published the Government response to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on the suspension of work on the Wylfa nuclear power station. We welcomed the report, and our response reiterated our recognition of Wales’s world-leading capability across the sector. I hope that we can continue to build on the great nuclear history that exists in north Wales.
In June 2018 we launched our landmark nuclear sector deal in Trawsfynydd. As my hon. Friend is aware, the nuclear sector deal comprises a package of measures to support the sector as we develop low-carbon nuclear power and continue to clean up our nuclear legacy. Worth £200 million, the deal is about Government and industry working in partnership to achieve significant cost reductions across the nuclear sector, and to ensure that it remains competitive with other low-carbon technologies.
The deal includes a number of commitments to ensure that the UK’s nuclear sector has a highly skilled and more diverse workforce. I recently signed the nuclear sector gender commitment as part of the Government’s commitment to the nuclear sector deal target of 40% women in nuclear by 2030—and I say that to someone who has clearly had a leadership position in Women2Win.
We believe that apprenticeships and higher education will be a key component in achieving this goal, and are working closely with industry and skills bodies through the Nuclear Skills Strategy Group to understand the skills requirements and potential challenges faced by the sector.
The Government also consider that new technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble mentioned, could play an important role in supporting our economy and allowing the UK to continue to be a world leader in tackling climate change. That is why our £200 million nuclear sector deal includes millions for advanced nuclear technologies. We believe that both small and advanced modular reactors have significant potential to support a secure, affordable decarbonised energy system, alongside other low-carbon generation. That is why we have awarded £18 million to the low-cost nuclear challenge proposed by a Rolls-Royce-led small modular reactor consortium. The challenge aims to design a working model that could be deployed as early as 2030. The consortium believes that a UK SMR programme can support up to 40,000 jobs at its peak, with each SMR capable of powering 750,000 homes.
To support advanced modular reactor development, we have committed up to £40 million to research and development through our AMR competition, the outcome of which will be announced shortly. Additionally, we have committed up to £26 million for an advanced  manufacturing and materials competition and up to £12 million to build regulatory capability, which is also important, to take future licensing decisions on small and advanced modular reactors in a safe way.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn once more for securing this important debate, and the Members who have made interventions. Nuclear can not only help us along the route to net zero by 2050, but is a key part of our economy. In 2018, there were around 89,000 people employed across the UK nuclear workforce and its supply chain. Our nuclear sector deal is looking to develop the skills that the sector needs and build a more diverse workforce. Hinkley Point C will kick-start new nuclear in the UK, providing firm base-load power and energy security for generations to come as we transition to a low-carbon economy. I look forward to working with all colleagues, and especially new ones, to ensure that we deliver for north Wales and support the energy island.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.